On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 05:37 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
On 12/5/06, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 11:26 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > I drafted a proposal for when it is ok to use Conflicts: (almost never):
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
> +1, except one detail:
> > There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple
> > packages. Instead of using Conflicts:, try the following:
> > * man page name conflicts: Rename the man pages to include a prefix of
> > the providing package (e.g. foo-check.1.gz vs check.1.gz)
> IMO, this example is bogus: Man-pages should always be named after what
> they are trying to document, i.e. section 1 mans must be named after the
> => Documenting /usr/bin/check in a man-page named foo-check.1 because it
> conflicts with /bin/check's man-page is a no-go.
> Better, change the man-pages suffix, or change the name of the
> application and the name of man-page at the same time.
Perhaps a better example would be a .3 man page such as:
man3/foo.3.gz vs. man3/bar::foo.3.gz
Much easier, simply append something to the
It's the traditional way many *nixes circumvented this problem.
For a real world example in FE cf. Coin2 and Inventor (Both implement
the same API and therefore naturally must conflict).