On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
Jima wrote :
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to obsolete clamav-db would be
the nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh continue to package, it
might be worth suggesting they do similar for their package ?
-1, Flamebait ;-)
Jima: Can you estimate 'when' it's been discussed before ?
This specific issue? I'm not sure it has. I was referring more to the
act of starting a thread that pits Fedora against outside repository
maintainers.
2) To consider using the clamav-db name instead of clamav-data
Which name fits the guidelines ? {-data is currently in extras}
Guidelines? Third-party repositories don't have to follow any guidelines
besides their own (which is both good and bad).
Then also poke the Extras clamav maintainer to have the proper
"Obsoletes: clamav-db <= last-known-V-R" added to the clamav-data
package.
This will achieve what I though we would want in fedora;, but would also be
susceptible to rpmforge releasing a later V or R, and causing a change to the
rpmforge packages, wouldn't it ?
This is the turf war angle I mentioned earlier.
I read several complaints on fedora-list about the way clamav is packaged
in Extras, I think that's why a lot of people use the RPMs from other
repos...
I don't have time at the moment to scan the archives. Can you remember if
these seemed like fixable issues while still fitting the fedora packaging
guidelines ?
It seems to me that issues with how a package is designed should be
brought up via Requests For Enhancement in Bugzilla, not as complaints on
a mailing list. I think RFEs have a better chance of being addressed.
Jima
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
