On Thursday 05 June 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:47PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > That would break scripts etc that assume the cyphesis-selinux package is > > still available (either as a real package, or a Provides somewhere else). > > Why would it be a good thing to intentionally cause this breakage? > > It seems to me that in some case (and here it could be such a case) it > is acceptable not to be backward compatible, here in order to have the > stand-alone cyphesis-selinux package completly disappear, Which is taken care with Obsoletes. > and avoid inflating the number of provides. That's completely moot in the context of avoiding breakage. There's a very real, valid reason why the guideline for renaming/replacing packages exists and should be followed. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
