Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 a.badger@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tgl@xxxxxxxxxx, | |a.badger@xxxxxxxxx Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From a.badger@xxxxxxxxx 2007-08-27 13:35 EST ------- Rereading the Conflicts Guidelines with your comments in mind I think I see a point of confusion. The "Implicit Conflicts" section highlights the fact that implicit conflicts are never acceptable. It says that all conflicts must be explicit (marked with Conflicts: PKG). If I understand, your reading of that section is what leads you to mark the package Conflicts: postgresql-server. However, that section, taken in context with the preceding paragraph is meant only to convey that implicit conflicts are disallowed. To use "Conflicts: PKG" you still need to fit under one of the other categories (presently "Other Functionality" or "Compat Packages") which this package does not. This package comes closest to the "Binary Name Conflicts" section. In that section, two alternatives are given: Rename the files (in this case you would also have to use a different port) or use alternatives to manage the dual install. This package is a prime candidate for alternatives as it creates binaries that are commandline compatible with postgresql-server and needs to use the same port. You'll need to talk to Tom Lane (tgl redhat.com; now CC'd), the postgresql maintainer about how he feels about doing that with the main postgres package. He might also have a different idea on how to make the packages co-exist. If you and tgl decide that Conflicts really is the best way to go, present your reasoning to the Packaging Committee (fedora-packaging redhat.com) so they can consider adding another case where "Conflicts: PKG" is allowed. As a side note: I think that using rm to clean up files that you don't want to include in the package is much cleaner than using %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0 Turning off the check is using a bigger stick than necessary. Turning off the check means that you won't be warned of cases where the build changes and starts creating differently named binaries or new files that you actually want to install. Using rm will target specific files so it's more future proof. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review