[ATrpms-users] Conflict between fedora and atrpms version of lm_sensors

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:13:01PM -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> What I meant by "political issue" is that the Fedora maintainer is
> adamant about this being an ATrpm problem/issue while you would like
> it to be solved by having the Fedora maintainer introduce an
> Obsoletes line that he refuses.

Well, I answered on the bugzilla you wrote. Yes, some people just need
to read ATrpms to feel like it will eat their children. :)

> The bottom line is still that as things stand (irrespective of
> who-came-first), your sensord package is obsoleting a current Fedora
> core package. So even though you may be right in principle, I think it
> is a BAD thing for a 3rd party repository to muck up a legitimately
> installed package from the current Fedora release.

Well, the very same is true for the lm_sensors package itself, even
though it is named the same.

Your problem is triggered by protectbase that picks one package form
here and one form there. "Fixing" that by accomodating the packages
for protectbase is the bad workaround. smart and maybe even apt work
with such filtering better than yum and the plugins, so the focus
should be to fix yum's filtering (if one needs that at all) and make
sure the package pools are consistent otherwise.

The latter means that if repo A and B ship fooA and fooB which both
are equivalent then for compatibily's sake they should add versioned
Obsoletes/Provides for the other repo.

Bottom line: No matter what technical tools (protectbase etc.) you
will apply, if you don't have repoA and repoB talk with each other
then you will always get collisions. So I'd rather see us talk than
let the problem at the end users' hands.

Let's see maybe the maintainer at Fedora just misunderstood the
Obsoletes as an aggression towards his fresh packaging while it was
there long before he considered adding such functionality to his
packaging. I explained this in his bugzilla entry and perhaps he will
add those two simple compatibility hooks.

> You can imagine many innocent users being tricked up and confused by
> this.

Actually this only happens with the ones using protectbase and friends
;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20071218/0fedd521/attachment.bin