On 12/12/2011 12:08 PM, Honza Horak wrote: > I like this one, since it seems to be the easiest solution from my POV. > > But I don't see necessary to solve conflicts using renaming library and > header files. I'd rather just let compat-gdbm-devel and gdbm-devel > sub-packages to conflict (use "Conflicts:" explicitly), since it doesn't > make sense to me to have both packages installed at the same time (base > packages won't conflict). Then we don't have to change anything but > "Requires:" in packages like ypserv. > > Please, let me know if you see any problems when solving that this way. In general, I would prefer that we avoided Conflicts whenever possible. The Packaging Guidelines do permit them in cases of compat packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts However, in this specific case, I'm comfortable with that approach. I'd like to see this change happen immediately in Rawhide and a rebuild done of ypserv to resolve the licensing concern. ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
