Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891952 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- > If there is Obsolete statement at the same time Of course! Because of that, setting the Conflicts tag is of very limited use. Only the Obsoletes statement is the important one for all sorts of dist updates/upgrades where packages are to be replaced (plus a "Provides" where appropriate). The target dist (here F17) will not include a pair of conflicting packages in its repositories. | As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the | Conflicts: field. [...] It confuses depsolvers and end-users for no | good reason. > I usually test the transitions and I've never seen any problem Consider yourself lucky. ;) Implicit *and* explicit conflicts stop at the transaction check already, leaving the problem to the user, who must figure out how to alter the package set to not suffer from conflicts. This is extremely annoying if it's a large package set with complex inter-dependencies. "Obsoletes" is the way to go here. I dunno whether a "perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps" package might ever want to return with changed/non-conflicting contents, so it may be okay to make the Obsoletes tag non-versioned. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Iq0FlFDwvy&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review