[ATrpms-users] PIL conflicts with fedora python-imaging package

[Jeffrey J. Kosowsky]

Axel - would be good to get your perspective on this...
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote at about 14:12:08 -0500 on Tuesday, December 1, 2009:
 > Note posting this thread and my added comments back to the list so
 > hopefully Axel can also see and give his feedback ;)
 > 
 > Paulo Cavalcanti wrote at about 12:54:33 -0200 on Tuesday, December 1, 2009:
 >  > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky <atrpms at kosowsky.org>wrote:
 >  > 
 >  > > Paulo Cavalcanti wrote at about 05:52:35 -0200 on Tuesday, December 1,
 >  > > 2009:
 >  > >  > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky <
 >  > > atrpms at kosowsky.org>wrote:
 >  > >  > > I must be missing something here.
 >  > >  > > Because hplip requires python-imaging while mytharchive requires PIL
 >  > >  > > and PIL and python-imaging conflict. And as far as 'rpm' knows they
 >  > >  > > are different rpms that just happen to share conflicting file names.
 >  > >  > >
 >  > >  > > So, I don't understand how I could install PIL without breaking
 >  > >  > > hplip's dependency on python-imaging.
 >  > >  > >
 >  > >  > > What am I missing here?
 >  > >  > >
 >  > >  >
 >  > >  > PIL provides python-imaging:
 >  > >  >
 >  > >  > cascavel:~] rpm -qi --whatprovides python-imaging
 >  > >
 >  > > Thanks Paulo.
 >  > > I have been using rpms for almost 15 years and never realized that one
 >  > > package could 'provide' another package too.
 >  > >
 >  > > Would it work (and make sense) to have PIL 'obsolete' python-imaging
 >  > > so that it would automatically replace it while also providing it or
 >  > > would that not work?
 >  > >
 >  > 
 >  > Yes, it makes all the sense. This should have been done a long time ago.
 >  > The problem, I think, is that Axel does not want to be accused of replacing
 >  > core packages any more.
 >  > 
 > That is understandable. And I too prefer not to obsolete and replace
 > "standard" Fedora packages unnecessarily. Especially, since you never
 > know what that could break down the road on the Fedora side...
 > 
 >  > I really do not know why he is using PIL and not the original
 >  > python-imaging.
 >  > Maybe he replies one of those mails ...
 >  > 
 > 
 > I think that is the real answer.
 > Both python-imaging and PIL are based on the same version of the
 > python imaging library. They have mostly the same files with each
 > containing a few that the other doesn't. 
 > 
 > That being the case it seems like the best solution is to either
 > eliminate PIL if python-imaging has all the necessary functionality or
 > alternatively make up a new python-imaging-extras package that just
 > includes the files that may be missing in the Fedora version (or
 > alternatively ask the Fedora maintainers to include them).
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > atrpms-users mailing list
 > atrpms-users at atrpms.net
 > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users