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? I think implicit Conflicts should be disallowed. This is marginally related to the comment requirement (it isn't as clear to have a comment hanging out at a random place in the spec file as it is to have it attached to a Conflicts tag.) It also lets people know through rpm metadata that the issue has been looked at. Both packages should conflict as that lets both packagers correspond with their upstreams about the Conflict. It could be that the old package is the one that either should or has an upstream willing to, rename its files. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
