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=572233 --- Comment #45 from Hicham HAOUARI <hicham.haouari@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-28 04:01:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #42) > Then this package should never have passed review! > I was fundamentally against this package at first, but since it seems that Fesco insisted on ABI compatibility ( for a single package which is dead upstream ), instead of taking a brave action and drop paperbox, I had no choice but help introducing it. > It is completely unacceptable for a compatibility package to conflict with the > main version. (Conflicts in -devel are tolerated for compat packages, but this > is about a runtime conflict.) It means you cannot use paperbox if you use > anything which requires the current tracker and pretty much defeats the point > of having this compat package at all. I agree on this point, but having two indexers running will bring most machines to their knees as mentioned earlier, in fact only one tracker is eating enough of my cpu. > > > I've made this to explicitly 'Conflicts' with the actual/latest tracker > > package. As a result of this, I've re-added some files that were not package > > earlier to prevent simultaneous installation conflict with tracker. > > That's not a proper solution, sorry. There is still room for improvement if you have a better solution, a package that passed review doesn't mean it is perfect. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review