On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:04:08 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > 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 That seems backwards, because simply sitting it out then would lead to implicit permission to go ahead with a Conflicts tag _instead_ of trying to contact the upstream projects. > 2. jday does not explicitly clonflict with netatalk > > I suggest to reopen the bug and assign it to jday. The ancient ticket for jday is from the F19 era: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/797815 Reopened. _______________________________________________ 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
