Hi, as an update beforehand: this discussion stirred up a review about krbafs-utils in Fedora which ended in this package being dropped for future Fedora (and thus RHEL) releases. E.g. it is now a discussion about how to deal with the *legacy* of krbafs-utils in RHEL3/4 and FC6/F7.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:32:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > >>>what about putting a "conflicts" or "obsoletes" rpm field in there? > > > >>If that solves the issues I'm all for it. > > > >That's probably a good idea. > > We certainly could conflict with krbafs-utils, though that would be a bit > odd, since what other AFS is there for those distributions? Why would that matter? > OTOH, since we provide conflicting versions of the same file, RPM > should _already_ be treating them as conflicting, Yes, but *file conflicts" are a bad thing in comparison to package conflicts. The latter can be taken in consideration by the depsolvers. In fact all of yum/apt/smart deal properly with a package obsoleting/conflicting another package while they fail on file conflicts. What happens is that the depsolver considers the package (co)installable and passes the install op command to rpm(lib). Them rpm fails and the depsolvers cannot recover anymore. > and since that's the only true conflict, the only thing that > asserting a conflict would do is uselessly insure you can't install > the two packages at the same time even if _they_ rename away the > conflicting files. No, most depsolvers know how to deal with it by removing the other package. Certainly for Obsoletes: and most depsolvers even for Conflicts: > Trying to obsolete krbafs-utils is almost certainly a bad idea. Why? The upstream vendor also agrees that krbafs-utils has been rotting in the distribution for far too long and dropped it for future ones (he can't simply remove it for released ones, of course). The functionality is being superseeded by the openafs bits, so both the upstream vendor and the openafs project agree that the openafs components are a better replacement for krbafs-utils. > Note that Fedora does have alternatives, which could certainly be used to > resolve this conflict in future releases. However, it requires all > packages providing the conflicting files to participate, so coordination > with the maintainer of krbafs-utils would be required. Well, the maintainer of krbafs-utils moved the files in /dev/null, so we could only have symlinks to /dev/null for the krbafs-utils alternative :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpQUKwmn6HWC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
