Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #53 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #52) > > I have been in contact with the group owning the ham-radio package 'node' > and I am attempting to convince them to rename in Fedora instead, given the > relative sizes of their communities. If they do not agree, I think I'm going > to take the formal Conflicts: route as described by > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Conflicts#Incompatible_Binary_Files_with_Conflicting_Naming_. > 28and_stubborn_upstreams.29 > Unfortunately, that doesn't work in this situation because it doesn't satisfy the "as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed simultaneously" requirement. I can't remember the exact example that prompted that wording but here's a contrived example: "Fedora has a package for udev. I want to package udev2 which is a forked version. No Fedora system is going to have two udev stacks installed simultaneously, so it's okay for the two packages to Conflict." It would seem that these conflicting names falls under: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Approaching_Upstream "If neither upstream renames, we would then approach other distributions [...] about renaming that can be done in all distros. [...] Once a decision is made, we would rename the Fedora packages to match." Since it seems you've looked at other distros and they've settled on renaming to nodejs, that's probably what we'd want to do in Fedora as well. it might even be better to do that even if the amateur radio package were willing to give up its claim to the name if all other Linux distros are performing the rename already. -- 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