https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263790
Martin Hoyer <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) --- Comment #24 from Martin Hoyer <[email protected]> --- I've done some more reading of packaging guidelines and from what I can tell, using alternatives is the preferred way? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_incompatible_binary_files_with_conflicting_naming_and_stubborn_upstreams https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_binary_name_conflicts From user perspective, there probably will never be a use-case for having the both executables installed, but on the other hand, why not. It would save us splitting the package and any potential issues with the usage of conflicts. Maybe(likely) I'm missing something. @Michel, if it's not too much to ask, could you explain why the Conflicts is considered the better option here please? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263790 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202263790%23c24 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
