https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790 --- Comment #13 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Chiming in because Raphael brought up the naming conflict on #fedora-devel, and neither he nor I found guidelines that give a clear-cut solution. This is the closest I found that touches the issue: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Incompatible_Binary_Files_with_Conflicting_Naming_.28and_stubborn_upstreams.29 NB: "stubborn upstreams" and "[p]lease consider this as a last resort" -- besides the naming issue there is no reason why both packages shouldn't be able to coexist on the same system. In my very personal opinion, neither project is so well established that it would automatically give one of them precedence over the other. Anecdata: I didn't know of either before this came up. One of the projects is 2 years older, the other is apparently more popular by being "starred" more often on github. I think that neither fact gives one of them the edge. Therefore, I'd ask you two to approach FESCo to get this issue resolved: "Enter new FESCo ticket" -- https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/newticket I can't predict what they'll decide but I guess it will be something along the lines of that one or both of the projects need to have a more distinctive name for the package as well as the contained files (binaries, man pages, etc.) in Fedora. E.g. "mdp-pwsafe" and "mdp-presenter". Whether or not the upstream projects will follow suit I can't say of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review