https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314 --- Comment #12 from Timothée Floure <timothee.floure@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > > gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell > > > > ^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell > > package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent? > > Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires: > chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the > provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages. > > But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the > renamed package? Not sure :) The legacy docs [1] says: "Providing your old package names is not necessary to create working upgrade paths." If there's indeed no requires on the old chrome-xxx package, then everything looks fine :-) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#cite_note-1 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
