On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 15:31 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Well, packages are allowed to conflict in Extras, although it's better
> if the conflicts are explicit via a Conflicts: header.
I'd like to raise this topic for discussion (again?).
I think that "plain" package conflicts(*) are never really warranted as
we have the alternatives system to make even the most potentially
conflicting packages (say MTAs with very uhm similar command sets)
coexist just fine.
(*): "plain" being where the latest version of a conflicts with the
latest version of b or worse all versions of b, not the kind you use if
you want to avoid having an old version of b installed alongside a, to
get updates made in a defined order.
I am yet to see "plain" conflicts that weren't due to poor choice of
binaries' or applications' names or otherwise poor packaging, i.e. the
conflict was always fairly easy to solve.
In that light I propose that such (for lack of better words) "plain"
conflicts should be prohibited in Extras as well as in Core.
Now fire away your comments (or counter examples).
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-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
