On 31. 10. 19 12:50, Michael Schwendt wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/797814 It has taken years for packagers to look into that implicit conflict. Finally, an update has been published, adding a "Conflicts" tag. I didn't get a response from the packager on whether this was with or without getting prior permission from the FPC. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/
Explicit approval of FPC is only needed in undocumented cases. This is a documented case (text from the page you've linked):
"In the specific case where multiple software components generate identically named (but incompatible) binaries, Fedora Packagers should make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict. However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates for alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager’s discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case."
In the linked case: 1. I don't see any attempt to talk to upstream at all, but maybe it happened 2. jday does not explicitly clonflict with netatalk I suggest to reopen the bug and assign it to jday. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
