Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497646 --- Comment #17 from Jussi Lehtola <[email protected]> 2009-05-13 03:51:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #13) > > (In reply to comment #12) > > > > I think we need just: > > > > > > Obsoletes: liberation-fonts-sans < 1.04.93-4 > > > > > > and similarly for mono and serif. > > > > No, you don't need that since it's already automatically done by rpm. You > > can > > remove those lines altogether. > > Read again. > > As for your patch, I'm strongly against it. > 1. you're introducing a common provides while making sure packagers had to > take > into account the different fonts was an explicit packaging goal > 2. as far as I understand, you're relying on undocumented yum behaviour the > yum > developpers never committed to 1. What are you saying? I consider a support package that is not removed when the main package is removed a packaging mishap. %{fontname}-common should not exist in the system if there is no %{fontname}-fonts package installed. 2. What "undocumented yum behaviour" might you be referring to? The thing that a package automatically provides itself with its own version, and yum updates packages with newer versions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
