On 12/5/06, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 11:26 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > I drafted a proposal for when it is ok to use Conflicts: (almost never): > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts +1, except one detail: > There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple > packages. Instead of using Conflicts:, try the following: > > * man page name conflicts: Rename the man pages to include a prefix of > the providing package (e.g. foo-check.1.gz vs check.1.gz) IMO, this example is bogus: Man-pages should always be named after what they are trying to document, i.e. section 1 mans must be named after the application. => Documenting /usr/bin/check in a man-page named foo-check.1 because it conflicts with /bin/check's man-page is a no-go. Better, change the man-pages suffix, or change the name of the application and the name of man-page at the same time.
Perhaps a better example would be a .3 man page such as: man3/foo.3.gz vs. man3/bar::foo.3.gz -Chris -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
