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=770615 --- Comment #5 from Adel Gadllah <[email protected]> 2012-03-05 11:04:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > After reading the packaging guidelines about Obsoletes/Provides I decided that > it's better to only obsolete gnome-utils since this package doesn't provide > any > libs or devel stuff. > > Also I removed the Provides line since it seems to me that we can't claim that > having baobab installed is the same as having gnome-utils. By this reasoning > none of the new separated utilities should get the Provides line so I'm on the > fence on this one. > > spec: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab.spec > srpm: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab-3.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Yeah an obsolete should be enough to handle upgrades too now days, so that's fine. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
