On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:28:04 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > So in that visualization of the problem, the versioned Conflicts makes more > > > sense than Obsoletes. > > > > Questionable. Conflicts are evil, even if they are only temporary. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts > > > I'm reading that this is okay usage into this section: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Optional_Functionality That's sad, if the guidelines allow so much room for interpretation. The section is titled "Optional Functionality" and does not talk about adding conflicts for libraries that are too old or too new. It even specifically says to use Requires instead of Conflicts! > The package can work with the datanommer package if that package is >= 0.2.0 > It will conflict if the datanommer package is less than 0.2.0. It would not even install, would it? It would cause a file conflict, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Implicit_Conflicts and turning that into an explicit Conflict is not much better. > > There's also the "Package Renaming Process". > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required > > > > Current "datanommer" package in koji includes a couple of Python modules, > > two of them are included also in the new python-datanommer-models package: > > "datanommer" and "datanommer.models". Hence this is a rename. > > Moving the modules to a different package without adding Obs/Prov isn't > > nice. > > > > "repoquery --whatrequires datanommer" returns nothing. Koji tells that > > this package is so brand-new, it's updates-testing *only*. With several > > releases since 2012-09-26 not having reached "stable" at all. > > > It's questionable to me whether this is a rename or not. The feedback that > Mario quotes about the packager's intention says that the packager is not > thinking of this as a rename. It seems that currently, the datanommer > application ships with several python modules. Some of those ae being moved > to their own package. But the datanommer package is going to continue to exist. > Installing the updated datanommer =will pull in the new python-datanommer-models > package via Requires. So in practical terms, people who have the datanommer > paackage installed will upgrade to the new datanommer and still have the > python modules because of the Requires: python-datanommer-models in the > updated datanommer package. Given the speed at which this package changes, we're not talking about weeks or months, but possibly just days that there would be a conflict due to a rushed out python-datanommer-models package. Why can't the new python-datanommer-models not be released _together_ with a corresponding datanommer package? -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.6.1-1.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.36 0.28 0.25 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
