On 12/12/2011 07:53 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
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.
ypserv is now rebuilt against compat-gdbm. I'll keep on working on a
better solution (I like Ville's idea with qdbm, thanks for the point).
Honza
~tom
==
Fedora Project
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
