On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:42:14 +0100 Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:22:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down > > > (I'm not sure exactly why): > > > > > > Each package requiring multiversion support would have all these > > > versions almost the same as they are right now. The only > > > difference would be that there is a metapackage pointing at all > > > time to the latest version. > > > > Because metapackages are considered evil in Fedora (I'm not sure > > exactly why). > > To be perfectly honest I don't know either. But I already have half a > dozen use cases on my table where metapackages can help. Perhaps it's > time to re- consider this policy? > Metapackages have, in the past, been a problem b/c most folks were using them in place of comps groups. The usage you're describing doesn't sound like the end of the world but go through a test set of what happens when someone adds obsoletes/provides to a metapackage. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
