On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 00:33 +0200, Laurent Rineau wrote: > Since ipe-6.0pre32, the tool ipe5toxml is released as a separate tarball, > upstream, whereas is was previously shipped in the ipe tarball (as in > ipe-6.0pre30). > > I have updated Rawhide's ipe to 6.0pre32, but I do not know what to do with > that tool that disappeared from the tarball. > > Should I: > - make the ipe package have two sources tarball, instead of one, and tweak > the %prep/%build/%install parts? > - or package ipe5toxml into a new separate package (with its own src.rpm)? > > In the latter case, should ipe5toxml have > Obsoletes: ipe<6.0-0.30.pre30? > without Provides? > > I have not found that case in the packaging guidelines. I hope I have searched > correctly. If you went for the second option then ipe5toxml should _conflict_ with older ipe packages, not obsolete them. If you set it to obsolete them then that's telling the package manager that ipe5toxml is a complete replacement for the ipe package and ipe5toxml should be installed and ipe removed, from your description this is clearly not the case. Conflicts is the correct relationship for this case. I don't know which of the two is considered the 'more correct' path, though. I suppose to an extent it depends on how likely you would be to want ipe without ipe5toxml, or vice versa (if that's possible). What's upstream's motivation for separating them? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
