On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:53, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:35, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I just wanted to remind folks that FESCo would really like for us to
> finish up guidelines for conflicts (and Conflicts:) soon. Not much
> has happened to the draft since it was presented.
> The discussion I actually recall revolved around the suggestions in
> the "Conflicting Files" section:
> man pages should probably go into different "sections" (like
> Coin2-devel and Inventor-devel) instead of being renamed.
> I recall objection to using "alternatives" for conflicting binaries.
> There's probably plenty I don't recall, however. We really should try
> to finish this up and present it to the various committees next week.
What about the situation where Foo conflicts with bar <= 1.0, but Foo
doesn't require bar to run? A Requires: bar > 1.0 doesn't work here, can a
conflicts be used in this case? Is this an acceptable situation for the
list at the bottom of the page?
Also, this draft seems to be missing a clear "Problem this is trying to solve"
statement, which goes a long way to getting people to understand/comment on
Release Engineer: Fedora