On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 14:48 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > TC> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts > > A few comments: > > I don't think that we should allow any implicit package conflicts. Do > we need to make a hard rule that unresolvable conflicts must at least > be explicit? In other words, should it be a bug when any packages > conflict without explicitly using Conflicts:? And should the newer > one conflict with the older one, or should they both be fixed to > explicitly conflict with each other? People have been filing bugs against my packages when they (accidentally) implicitly conflict with other packages in the repository. Given that it stops yum cold, I don't think we need to state that this is a bug (it obviously is). :) > Additionally, do we need to add something to indicate that glibc's > versioned conflict with glibc-devel should instead be done with a > versioned requirement in glibc-devel? I guess the general wards > against Conflicts: cover this case, but a specific note may be of use. Ehh, this is already against the guidelines (foo-devel needs to have a versioned requirement for foo) and when that is in place the Conflicts is totally unnecessary. I can spell it out if people want that. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
