On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:53:41 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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? It depends on two questions: Does the distribution release include a conflicting pair of foo and bar? If after a fresh install, foo and bar are not installed. Does a "yum install foo bar" work? (In your example. is bar <= 1.0?) Is there an upgrade path for either one? That means the conflict must not make an upgrade from a previous dist release impossible. As in telling the user that there is a conflict, and when the user tries to exclude one of the packages, it is pulled back in by the dependency chain and leads to a "WTF?" scenario. E.g. installed is foo, and the dist upgrade wants to update foo + install a conflicting version of bar, or vice versa. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
