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=498218 --- Comment #14 from Edwin ten Brink <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-12 13:50:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > > > > > ? I am a bit reluctant about the provides: > > > > Provides: picturetile.pl = 20050314 > > > > Do we really need this? > > > > > > ? No, not really. I just added it in case someone decides to make a > > > Requires in fspot. I can drop this without any adverse effects, should I? > > > > > > > I would say, drop it. One RPM package providing two different versions of the > > same thing might confuse people or depsolvers. > > > > I realized that what I said is not true, since the package name is not > "picturetile.pl". So having that Provides is harmless. I don't know if it > brings us anything though. > > I leave it up to you. I'll leave it in, in order to make it easier for users to find this package. The typical use-case would be following: - user installs f-spot - user downloads additional extension PictureTile via fspot's Add-In manager - user runs Tools -> Create Photowall - user receives error message "picturetile.pl not found" - user tries to find "picturetile.pl", not "picturetile" Including the Provides makes it easier for rpmfind and the likes to serve this use-case. -- 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