A long standing task we had was: o virtual packages and provides/conflicts: we would expect that if two packages provide FOO they automatically also conflict each other. But this seems to be not the case. See MTA and sendmail/postfix/exim/ssmtp as an example.
I've now made all our packages with either a 'Provides' or 'Conflicts' list consistent with the above task description. The good thing is that we now have consistency. The bad thing is that I and Michael am wondering if we want consistency on this level. What we know: We already have rpm to tell us when files conflict at install time We have the 'Provides' and 'Conflicts' lists to use (or not) as we want An alternative would be to never use the conflicts field, thereby transferring responsibility of a consistent runtime instance to the admin installing packages to (possibly multiple) instances. Another alternative is to break this consistency between the 'Provides' and 'Conflicts' fields, in which we redefine a conflicting package as any that has file conflicts. If anyone has an opinion about this, then I'll make the changes. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Development Team, Application Services Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
