Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 10:36:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:coq-8.1pl3-2.fc10.i386 File conflict with: coda-client-6.9.4-0.1.rc2.fc10.i386 /usr/bin/parserHmmm, I thought that was going to happen. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323#c16 Down at the bottom of that comment I said: BTW having a binary called /usr/bin/parser is probably a bad idea. How do Debian package this file? They usually rename such generic names ('coqparser' or the like). If Debian rename it, then we should do so too. We checked Debian, and in fact they ship this as /usr/bin/parser too, which is why we left it. Not sure what is the best thing to do here: (1) Rename it and thus be inconsistent with both upstream & Debian. (2) Rename Coda's "parser" (breaking things?)
As the coda packager, let me add the following usefull info (not) I've no idea what will break with regards to coda if this binary is renamed. It seems to be a utility which gets called from other coda processes.
Any coda experts here?
(3) Leave it and tell people that they can't install both packages at once(!)
Regards, Hans -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
