On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 12:08 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Nils Philippsen (nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
> > Is this intentional (i.e. does it serve a purpose)? Otherwise the
> > depsolvers should be fixed as this makes splitting up packages rather
> > painful.
>
> If you have syslog-ng, rsyslog, and something else all obsoleting
> sysklogd, I don't think you want to automatically install all of them.
>
> (Then again, that may not be a proper usage of Obsoletes.)
Unless someone comes up with a compelling argument against it, let's
just act on the assumption that obsoletes are intended for the default
replacement(s) of old packages (and not just for any other package that
happens to provide the same or similar functionality). Perhaps this
should be spelled out in Packaging/NamingGuidelines?
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
