Re: Herbert Fortes (hpfn) 2016-01-04 <5689ac0b.4050...@ig.com.br> > >This is a serious bug as it makes installation fail, and violates > >sections 7.6.1 and 10.1 of the policy. An optimal solution would > >consist in only one of the packages installing that file, and renaming > >or removing the file in the other package. Depending on the > >circumstances you might also consider Replace relations or file > >diversions. If the conflicting situation cannot be resolved then, as a > >last resort, the two packages have to declare a mutual > >Conflict. Please take into account that Replaces, Conflicts and > >diversions should only be used when packages provide different > >implementations for the same functionality. > > As I understand, 'Conflicts' can be a solution. The packages > are for complete different use. And they are *-dev packages.
Policy says Conflicts should be avoided if the packages are doing something different. It would be bad user experience if a system running pacemaker/corosync couldn't have the webcamoid stuff installed in parallel. Though given the problem is only between -dev packages, I'd guess using Conflicts would be okayish. As webcamoid is the newer package, the problem should probably first fixed on that side. Herbert, can you arrange that? Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
