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 #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-14 14:06:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > (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. Ah, what I wanted to say is that - Package A can work with B installed or without B installed - But A won't work if B with _old_ version is installed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Optional_Functionality > > 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. This seems pretty good!! Thank you for your effort (By the way if epiphany(abi) = foo is provided, Conflict method is no longer needed, just using "Requires: epiphany(abi) = foo" is much preferred. Or maybe also using this method is no longer needed... now that version-independent symlink is provided, need checking) -- 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