[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Alternatives (Re: [fab] build service)



On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 19:59 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> During package review that may be true. Still there are packages which
> conflict with eachother explicitly, and the number of "Conflicts" tags in
> Extras is increasing, too. "grep ^Confli * -R" lists 46 explicit
> conflicts, among them are Core package names. Where they are versioned,
> maybe they don't conflict with anything actually. The existence of such
> "Conflicts" lines in spec files is dangerous and highly questionable.

Agreed. Does fesco know about this? Is anyone looking into correcting
those?

We should be able to automatically scan for those on check in, I'd
think.

> Since Extras are always built only against latest updates, would you put
> your hand into the fire that it is always safe to upgrade from something
> like up-to-date FC(n)+Extras to CD/DVD based FC(n+1)?

I thought that was the point of evaluating pkgs.


> Further, stuff like initng even replaces a core OS process, works with a
> modified boot menu and clearly is an alternative to Core and not a clean
> add-on. And it is not the only Extras package which is run at boot-time
> and must not fail ever at first-boot after an upgrade.

it replaces only in functionality. It doesn't actually have an obsolete
and, afaik, it doesn't have any conflicting files, does it?

-sv



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]