Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-14 10:18:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #17) > > "Conflicts" > > must only be used when packages really conflict, this means they cannot be > > installed at the same time, e.g. because both provide the same files or > > functionality. > > This is exactly "functionality" case. You suggested epiphany to conflict with gget-epiphany-extension, but a web browser certainly does not provide the same functionality as download manager. > Well, I don't know if I grasped what you want to say here correctly, > however anyway my current idea is > - ephiphany should have "Provides: epiphany(abi) = 2.22" or so Please take a look at bug # 479921, where I have taken this suggestion into account. Malte obviously understood what I'm talking about. > - epiphany should own %_libdir/epiphany/XXXX/extensions (and > some other epiphany related directories if any) Yes, also applies to the plugins dir. Simply owning %_libdir/epiphany/XXXX/extensions will not help. We also need to get rid of the version, but all this is explained in bug # 479921. (In reply to comment #19) > Maybe I should have just disabled the epiphany-extension :) No need to, Malte already fixed it in rawhide, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1052223 Not sure if/when this will appear in the other releases. > Nah, this is interesting. Indeed. Thanks to Mamoru for his feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review