On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "RK" == Rudolf Kastl <che666@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > RK> 2. qstat and torque-client both provide a qstat binary... is there > RK> anything done to get that resolved upstream? or is it a "conflicts > RK> and forget" scenario? > > This one, I think, should be easily resolvable with alternatives. > Would be happy for an alternatives solution. I have yet another /usr/bin/qstat for a POSIX interface to batch on the way at some point. > Actually I think all but a small number of the currently conflicting > packages could be fixed up pretty easily. Currently it doesn't seem > that there's any sort of enforcement outside of the original package > review. > > The way around this is, of course, for someone to spend some time > generating the current list of conflicting packages, proposing > solutions, and working with FESCo in the case that those solutions are > not applied. > > - J< > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- Steve Traylen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
