On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 15:40 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 16 January 2007 14:45, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > As discussed in today's FPC meeting, I've made some changes to the > > Conflicts Draft Proposal to document some acceptable cases, add some > > additional valid file name conflict workarounds, and fix the wording > > here and there. > > > > FPC Members: Please vote on this draft via email, so we can get this in > > place well before the Core/Extras merge. As I wrote the draft, I vote > > +1. ;) > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts > > It was brought up that since RHEL is based on Fedora releases, and RHEL does > crazy things like support RHEL3 to RHEL5 upgrades, it is reasonable to have > conflicts information in a Fedora package that dates a little farther back > than the latest supported Fedora release, since we're trying to use these > packages and guidelines for RHEL too. No, actually, RHEL doesn't support v3 -> v5 upgrades afaik. At least, RHEL has never previously supported upgrades across more than one major release. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging