On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:10:24PM +0200, Mario Blättermann wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm currently reviewing the following package: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 > > The package python-datanommer-models seems to be a splitout from > datanommer, that's why we have currently: > > Conflicts: datanommer < 0.2.0 > > In my mind, it should be "Obsoletes" instead of "Conflicts" because it > is the successor of datanommer. But we have a somewhat more difficult > scenario here. The packager writes: > > "Regarding the Conflicts/Obsoletes/Provides, I'd like to still maintain > the datanommer package itself as a kind of meta-package that installs > the splitoffs but also includes "fedmsg-hub" which will turn on a new > service. Once these packages are approved, I would bump the datanommer > meta package from 0.1.8 to 0.2.0 to match them." > So in that visualization of the problem, the versioned Conflicts makes more sense than Obsoletes. > Could we split out the appropriate files from datanommmer instead, > throwing away the new review request? Means, we have a "datanommer" base > package which is a metapackage only with some common files, which pulls > the needed dependencies. Any ideas for a convenient solution while > keeping a proper upgrade path? > This sounds like it would also be possible, though. If this is what's done, there's likely no need to mess with Conflicts and obsoletes at all. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgplVsBbzyPUn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
