On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > > > >> Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: > >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without > >>>> obseltues :) > >>> Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. > >>> > >> This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. > >> Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. > > > > First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be > > preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts > > To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel > (because of the same library with the different soversion), > however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict. Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts [...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts [...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...] So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. "openal-soft" is not a compatibility package. The old "openal" at most could be described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft. We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
