On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:53, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:35, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I just wanted to remind folks that FESCo would really like for us to > > finish up guidelines for conflicts (and Conflicts:) soon. Not much > > has happened to the draft since it was presented. > > > > The discussion I actually recall revolved around the suggestions in > > the "Conflicting Files" section: > > > > man pages should probably go into different "sections" (like > > Coin2-devel and Inventor-devel) instead of being renamed. > > > > I recall objection to using "alternatives" for conflicting binaries. > > > > There's probably plenty I don't recall, however. We really should try > > to finish this up and present it to the various committees next week. > > What about the situation where Foo conflicts with bar <= 1.0, but Foo > doesn't require bar to run? A Requires: bar > 1.0 doesn't work here, can a > conflicts be used in this case? Is this an acceptable situation for the > list at the bottom of the page? Also, this draft seems to be missing a clear "Problem this is trying to solve" statement, which goes a long way to getting people to understand/comment on it. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpGls0NoT3Re.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
