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

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



Jason L Tibbitts III schrieb:
>>>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> writes:
> TL> And BTW, where is the rule in the packaging guidelines and the
> TL> point in the review guidelines that forbids "Conflicts" or
> TL> encourages people to avoid them?
> There isn't one; Conflicts: is a perfectly valid thing to have.

Well, sure, but the rule in the beginning always was "Extras packages
don't conflict or replace packages from Core". Well, it seems it got
lost on the way. I'm wondering if we should put it back, but I tend to
think that's worth the trouble as Core and Extras might merge by FC7 in
any case.

> It's
> not really the Packaging committee's business to day whether conflicts
> are permitted; its up to either FESCo or the core cabal to make that
> policy.

Sure, it's FESCo business to declare a rule "Extras packages don't
conflict or replace packages from Core".

But maybe we should have general rules for conflicts that are for both
Extras and Core and thus business for the Packaging Committee. Michael,
what's your opinion here?

> What we could do is pass a guideline that any conflicts should be explicit
> through a Conflicts: header, and to require specfile comments about
> the nature of the conflict.  I'll raise it for discussion.

tia

>  Of course,
> this is moot if conflicts simply aren't permitted, but I personally
> don't think that's reasonable.

+1

CU
thl

P.S.: Should we move this discussion to fedora-maintainers? That's would
be the better place afaics.


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