On 21.02.2007 14:32, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
Agreed, with the new world order (PC below FESCo and the new merged
FESCo for both Core and Extras) that could be done by FESCo -- when I
was still in FESCo and it was still Extras only I tried to avoid such a
move because I didn't want to have such a thing as Extras-specific rule.
There is no technical knowlegde needed to decide on
that.
Well, it will quickly raise questions like "Is 'Conflicts kernel <
2.6.17' okay?"
Does FESCo like surprises during full installations or when future
updates pull in a conflicting dep-chain?
Seems nobody is targeting anymore to make "full installations" possible.
>[...]
CU
thl
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
