On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > >Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > >> > >>Yes it's confusing and inconsistent behavior which I *really* want to get > >>rid of. It's just that this is not a simple matter of "fixing rpm" - our > >>package set is full of conflicting files. The package set needs fixing, > >>otherwise you'll have a very much uninstallable x86_64 (and to slightly > >>lesser effect ppc) tree. > > > >Wouldn't fixing rpm early in the development cycle encourage more packages > >to get fixed faster? > > That's the very reason bug #190209 is being dusted off at the moment :) What are the rules you want to have? 1- always conflict 2- conflict if contents different 3- conflict if contents different and color identical 4- conflict if contents different and color not RPMFC_ELF* 5- something else Current rule in incremental installations is 3, right? OG. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
