On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:05:33PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Montag, den 30.01.2012, 15:06 +0200 schrieb Panu Matilainen: > > On 01/30/2012 02:31 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2012, 23:38 -0500 schrieb Jon Stanley: > > >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Christoph Wickert > > >> <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I wonder if this rule is still needed. I know I'd loose backward > > >>> compatibility with older rpm versions, but I don't want make a > > >> > > >> I agree that a -common subpackage is silly for this, but are any of > > >> the RPM versions that this *wouldn't* work with still in supported > > >> releases? > > > > > > Not in Fedora. > > > > > >> The only one I'd be concerned with is RHEL5, but I think even that > > >> works right, no? > > > > > > I haven't tested it, but based on my experience with multi-arch file > > > conflicts I *guess* it will not work on RHEL 5. > > > > Sharing identical files between packages has always been allowed in rpm, > > that's not an issue. > > Thanks for this clarification, Panu. > > Before I go ahead and commit my changes, can I have an 'official' > statement from the packaging committee? Should I file a trac ticket? > Yes, please do -- I can't think of a reason we wouldn't update the guidelines to allow this usage but I'm not the only FPC member and someone else on the Committee may remember some other problem thatI don't. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpxHw1pFiCCZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
