Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

--- Comment #17 from Christoph Wickert <>  
2009-01-12 16:34:37 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Other packages failing to rebuild have also prevented major packages in 
> your sense from being upgraded. I can see no gain to loose dependency
> on this package for the reason you raised (and for this package
> you can simply remove this, while for gnome-desktop (for example)
> we actually have to wait until (almost) all package are rebuilt)

I was not talking about packages that fail to rebuild but about packages that
stop working after an update, although all dependencies are still met.

Please ask yourself, what is better from a users point of view:
a) When epiphany gets updated he will loose the functionality of the gget
extension until it's getting rebuilt. When gget gets updated afterwards,
everything is fine again: everything works, no orphaned dirs
b) When epiphany gets updated the update will fail due to broken deps. The user
has to work around them by removing gget-epiphany-extension and installing it
and to re-install it when it was rebuilt. Or he has to wait and to bear the
risk that epiphany itself gets broken.

I know that my suggestion does not follow the rules, but IMO we don't need to
follow a rule as if it was a mantra.

> Then:
> if epiphany has 2.22{,X} version, the epiphany won't conflict
> with these two.

You are right, I did not think if the minor version. Nevertheless "Conflicts"
must only be used when packages really conflict, this means they cannot be
installed at the same time, e.g. because both provide the same files or

> So I am asking you to ask epiphany maintainer first (as I did to 
> vim maintainer). It is not desired that no one using that
> directory tries to argue with epiphany maintainer and gets satisfied with
> his/her "local" hack.
> KDE has kde-filesystem, font packages got to use fontpackages-filesystem
> and so on. Please contact with epiphany maintainer first.

And we have mozilla-filesystem and we have ... I think a filesystem package
would be overkill here, but I agree you pointed out some valid points.

OK, but I want to make a constructive suggestion and not only open a bug. So
hat do you think abut my suggestion from the bottom of comment #13?

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to