On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 14:48 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway
A few comments:
I don't think that we should allow any implicit package conflicts. Do
we need to make a hard rule that unresolvable conflicts must at least
be explicit? In other words, should it be a bug when any packages
conflict without explicitly using Conflicts:? And should the newer
one conflict with the older one, or should they both be fixed to
explicitly conflict with each other?
People have been filing bugs against my packages when they
(accidentally) implicitly conflict with other packages in the
repository. Given that it stops yum cold, I don't think we need to state
that this is a bug (it obviously is). :)
Additionally, do we need to add something to indicate that
versioned conflict with glibc-devel should instead be done with a
versioned requirement in glibc-devel? I guess the general wards
against Conflicts: cover this case, but a specific note may be of use.
Ehh, this is already against the guidelines (foo-devel needs to have a
versioned requirement for foo) and when that is in place the Conflicts
is totally unnecessary. I can spell it out if people want that.