https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896 --- Comment #17 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > I've looked through the changelog for pari and it looks like old versions of > > pari can't use elldata but wouldn't be broken by it (i.e. in this case there > > wasn't a data format change, whcih was what I was concerned about). So I've > > dropped the conflict in -5. > > > > Spec URL: > > http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-elldata/branches/fedora/ > > pari-elldata.spec > > SRPM URL: > > http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-elldata-20120415-5.src.rpm > > Did you mean ....-5.fc18.src.rpm? :-) Yes, I did: Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-elldata/branches/fedora/pari-elldata.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #16) > fedora-review failed due to wrong srpm link, but there is the > issue of it installing in %{_datadir}/pari, but not requiring > the "owner" of %{_datadir}/pari. It cannot require pari (the owner of %{_datadir}/pari) as that would create circular build dependencies. Hence this package also owns %{_datadir}/pari so that the directory is owned if this package is installed without pari itself. Multiple packages owning the same directory is OK by the guidelines if there is no dependecy relationship between those packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function -- 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