On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:18:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > That reminds me: When will the conflicts policy/guidelines ever get > finished and made effective by the Packaging Committee? I think it was > voted and accepted (not sure), but it's still in the drafts section: > > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts * No package for %{dist} must conflict with any other package for the same %{dist} (multi-lib issues left aside!). Neither implicitly nor explicitly. This is a policy FESCo could decide on without having to wait for the Packaging Comittee. There is no technical knowlegde needed to decide on that. Does FESCo like surprises during full installations or when future updates pull in a conflicting dep-chain? * Exceptions? Perhaps "lazy packaging" in compat*-devel packages as mentioned in above document? Though, it should be possible to relocate header files and modify foo-config scripts appropriately. Packages with a completely disjunct target group? E.g. "qstat" vs. "torque" in Fedora Extras. Still, with the background of torque, it would be justified if the qstat package (upstream!) renamed its files in order to resolve that conflict. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
