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 #19 from Jussi Lehtola <[email protected]> 2009-05-13 05:23:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > > 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. > > This is not a realistic expectation. Large parts of the distro violate this > rule today and have for a long as Fedora and RHL existed. Status quo is not a valid argument IMHO. > > 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? > > You make different packages, that can be installed simultaneously, have the > same provides. This has always been a case the dependency engines didn't > handle > very well. And you don't even have a strong reason to do so, your fix is at > best cosmetic. Okay; I've just seen the same sort of thing with other packages, e.g. xfig comes first to my mind. You can do the dropping of the unnecessary Provides: and Obsoletes, though (even if it is just a cosmetic change). -- 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
