On Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:48:12 AM +0200 Axel Thimm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Well, if the package is only useful when AFS is installed, and conflicts
with the only AFS, that's sort of silly.
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.
That's a good point.
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).
OK. This makes it not a bad idea.
The problem is that if you claim to obsolete another package, but you
aren't actually that package's successor and there continue to be new
versions of it, then things start to get very confusing. As long as there
is agreement that krbafs-utils should go away, than obsoleting it is
probably the right thing.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
