Conflicts policy (Was: Re: Goodbye, Fedora)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 21.02.2007 14:32, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:18:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> That reminds me: When will the conflicts policy/guidelines ever get 
>> finished and made effective by the Packaging Committee? I think it was 
>> voted and accepted (not sure), but it's still in the drafts section:
>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
 >
> * No package for %{dist} must conflict with any other package for the
> same %{dist} (multi-lib issues left aside!). Neither implicitly nor
> explicitly.
> 
> This is a policy FESCo could decide on without having to wait for the
> Packaging Comittee.

Agreed, with the new world order (PC below FESCo and the new merged 
FESCo for both Core and Extras) that could be done by FESCo -- when I 
was still in FESCo and it was still Extras only I tried to avoid such a 
move because I didn't want to have such a thing as Extras-specific rule.

> There is no technical knowlegde needed to decide on
> that.

Well, it will quickly raise questions like "Is 'Conflicts kernel < 
2.6.17' okay?"

> Does FESCo like surprises during full installations or when future
> updates pull in a conflicting dep-chain?

Seems nobody is targeting anymore to make "full installations" possible.

 >[...]

CU
thl