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=797418 --- Comment #7 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-05 23:08:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It is merely a brain exercise at this point. > Would it be reasonable / acceptable to replace the /usr/bin/executable with a > script that checks for the freeworld exec and if present runs it, otherwise > runs the fedora one .. ? > > (Any of this really defeats rpmfusion http://rpmfusion.org/FoundingPrinciples > of add-on packages and not replacements of fedora packages.) > Yes, replacing Fedora packages is against the principles of RPMFusion. It can be argued that adding a "Conflicts:" effectively violates this principle. > I sort of think conflicts make most sense: > 1. either you want one or the other for whatever reason (eg fedora audio spin) > - any use case for having both installed, having 2x exes, 2x desktop icons > etc ? > Well, to be honest, I cannot think of a reason other than some convenience for us maintainers, and the above violation argument (but audacity lived this way for a long time, so I don't expect an objection should we add the Conflicts) > 2. you dont want to be upgraded between the two variants as updates are > released. > > ps. by the way, and from distant memory, Fedora has a guideline mentioning > something a long the lines of: > adding stuff to support out of fedora packages isn't kosher (but I can't find > the exact mention of this). Hmm, I remember seeing counterexamples, however this is really not the case here. We only need to change things on the RPMFusion side. The Fedora qtractor package will not be modified in any way to accommodate the RPMFusion qtractor no matter what path we choose. (In reply to comment #6) > I can't see we you'd want them to be parallel installable unless they're > fundamental differences in how they're built and/or function. Apart from the > absence of mp3 read/playback the only other difference is suil/lilv support > which will need to be reviewed here and whether its determined to be > appropriate. > Hi, please see above. > Is it difficult to rename the package in rpmfusion and if we do is the > conflicts enough? (I'm thinking of the scenario where people have qtractor from > rpmfusion and it is suddenly updated by the one from Fedora minus mp3? Might > surprise a few people out there) I don't think it is any more difficult than in Fedora. As the rules are the same, we need to retire the old qtractor and file a new review request. -- 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