Le Lun 13 novembre 2006 09:12, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit : > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:29:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> [...] >> >> Example: >> >> devel/hunky-fonts/hunky-fonts.spec >> >> Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93 >> >> There's no comment that explains this. Can we please require packagers >> to explain such unusual things in the spec file? >> >> Either it's superfluous Conflicts information (overuse of an RPM >> feature) >> or at some point in time the package really conflicted with Core's >> fontconfig. In that case, ouch. > > The same conflict applies to all font packages. Its root is here > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00918.html That's one reason but not the only one, font systems are fun. >The introduction of the Conflict came instead of Requires: th > e newer fontconfig). The spec file change was copy-pasted from one font > package to most (all?) others. Probably from my dejavu-fonts spec > I suspect the correct thing to do was to > add a Requires: fontconfig >= 2.3.93 instead of the Conflicts:. > > Is that correct? No. We don't want font packages to depend on fontconfig. However if fontconfig is installed it better be a version compatible with the fontconfig stuff the font package does (ghosting of cache files is one thing, another is the conf files we drop in /etc/fonts/conf.d - I have no idea how an older fontconfig would interpret the new syntax and frankly I don't want to test it). The conflict should be no problem as a font package should never conflict with the fontconfig version of the release it's pushed for. It's only a safety should a system update its fontconfig package without updating the font packages at the same time. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
