Hi!
I'd like some feedback on the following scenario that had caused an implicit
conflict because of moving shared libs from the main package to a subpackage:
| transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
| - file /usr/lib64/libtesseract.so.5.4.1 from install of
| tesseract-libs-5.4.1-4.fc41.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
| tesseract-5.4.1-2.fc41.x86_64
The package maintainer's choice of a fix was to add
Conflicts: tesseract < 5.4.1-4
to "tesseract-libs" whereas common packaging practice has been to prefer
a strict dependency instead, with
Requires: tesseract-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
in package "tesseract".
In Fedora packaging we've tried to avoid explicit conflicts for many years.
Searching the guidelines, I only find this entry from 2013, which is
about "acceptable use" but not a strict MUST:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_splitting_packages
Could this be revisited and refined as to be clear about the scenario
of a package split? Specifically, _any_ file moved between [sub]packages
could cause an implicit conflict during system updates. As such, explicit
"Requires" have been the primary choice to add a strict dependency. If
an explicit "Conflicts" tag is needed, the guidelines ought to make that
clear.
--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
