On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 05:37 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote: > 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 Much easier, simply append something to the man suffix: man1/check.1foo.gz It's the traditional way many *nixes circumvented this problem. For a real world example in FE cf. Coin2 and Inventor (Both implement the same API and therefore naturally must conflict). Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
