https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213078 --- Comment #13 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- OK, that looks good from a technical perspective. >From a Packaging Guidelines perspective I'm a little bit on the fence whether "Conflicts: goldendict" is the best solution. I've looked a bit more into this issue and this is my current thought process: The packaging guidelines state: "There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple packages. Fedora strongly discourages using Conflicts: to resolve these cases." [1] Also [2] states that "Fedora Packagers should make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict". The comment at [3] and [4] would suggest that the upstream author is aware of the issue and may be thinking about other ways to solve the problem. We could wait for this to happen or proceed in the interim. Then in [4] the Packaging Guidelines say "If neither upstream renames, we would then approach other distributions (distributions-list[at]freedesktop.org is a good place to discuss this) about renaming that can be done in all distros.". I went and checked how other distributions, if they have goldendict-ng packaged in their repositories, deal with it. To my surprise almost all go with the "Conflicts" route. - ArchLinux (AUR): https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/goldendict-ng - Debian: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/goldendict-ng/-/blob/a60e71cb615f29d93165b9bf4db2affb0d7b3da7/debian/control#L48 - Ubuntu: Imports the Debian package unchanged - openSUSE: Packaged goldendict-ng as goldendict but has since renamed it https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/1087962, the openSUSE packager is also active in the discussions around renaming in the GitHub issues/PRs. Given that this package creates file-level conflicts with goldendict there isn't really a way to parallel install both versions at this point without patching goldendict-ng to both install and look for it's asset files in a different location. That would create a Fedora-specific solution that deviates from how other distributions behave, so I'd avoid that. With this being out of the picture the whole Alternatives / Environment Modules ([6,7]) route is also not viable. As such I conclude that for now it'd have to be "Conflicts: goldendict" until upstream makes up their mind on whether they would like to rename files and locations. As per [2] "However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates for alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager’s discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.". I am satisfied that under the above mentioned rule adding the "Conflicts: goldendict" is at your discretion. But it also means a bug needs to be filed against goldendict for it to also include a "Conflicts: goldendict-ng". If this is the course of action you would like to take please open a bug against goldendict and add it to this bug as a blocker. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_common_conflicting_files_cases_and_solutions [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_incompatible_binary_files_with_conflicting_naming_and_stubborn_upstreams [3]: https://github.com/xiaoyifang/goldendict-ng/issues/690#issuecomment-1548702315 [4]: https://github.com/xiaoyifang/goldendict-ng/pull/693#issuecomment-1552357324 [5]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_approaching_upstream [6]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/ [7]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/EnvironmentModules/ -- 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=2213078 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202213078%23c13 _______________________________________________ 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
