On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:29:45 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > What is the official policy about packages in Fedora Extras which > > marked as conflicting with eachother? > > Conflicting packages are bad, period. Makes writing installers > messy, as conflicts are done at the last stage of resolution. > > They really should be avoided if at all possible. > > > I think there are other extras which conflict because they provide same > > or similar functionality, not limited to "leafnode" and "suck", > > "oidentd" and "pidentd" (core), "proftd" and "vsftpd anonftp" (core). > > Are these real physical conflicts, or merely things that provide > similar functionality? Either. To be investigated. I just ran grep on the devel tree in CVS. proftpd package listing looks like it conflicts physically, also with old wuftpd. gpgme-devel and gpgme03-devel (as well as sylpheed-claws and sylpheed) are physical conflicts. $ rpmlsv gpgme-devel -rwxr-xr-x root root 2755 /usr/bin/gpgme-config -rw-r--r-- root root 47745 /usr/include/gpgme.h -rw-r--r-- root root 264428 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pth.a lrwxrwxrwx root root 22 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pth.so -rw-r--r-- root root 264290 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pthread.a lrwxrwxrwx root root 26 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pthread.so -rw-r--r-- root root 268276 /usr/lib/libgpgme.a lrwxrwxrwx root root 18 /usr/lib/libgpgme.so -rw-r--r-- root root 8034 /usr/share/aclocal/gpgme.m4 -rw-r--r-- root root 55012 /usr/share/info/gpgme.info.gz As you can imagine, it could get ugly to relocate files like this and still make sure, API users still find them. gpgme03's only API/ABI user left is sylpheed-claws, which might catch up with main sylpheed GPGME 1.0 support soon. And then old gpgme03 can go for good.
