On Friday 24 August 2007 15:36:57 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:06:45AM +0200, Johan Cwiklinski wrote: > > I think it will be better to name the package d3lphin, which should > > 'obsoletes' and 'provides' dolphin, as d3lphin is the official name, and > > is officially a dolphin's fork. > > Why should we keep existing dolphin as it ? It don't understand the > > benefit, as its is unmaintained upstream, and it will also give the > > maintainers some - in my opinion - useless work. > > But the KDE4 dolphin is still maintained? If we make the older package > obsolete the newer one, that seems like upgrade pain later. 1) The Obsoletes is versionned. 2) Anyway, in KDE4 dolphin will be in kdebase, and not in an external package. There will not be any problem, IMO. -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
