On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:27:52 +0100, MC (Milan) wrote:
> > "Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package
> > Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for
> > those who follow it.
>
> Hi,
> I'm sorry for a confusion, it wasn't meant like real "rename of a
> package", I did not know internals for the change, for me it was
> "renamed", but as Matthias explained, it was not a package rename.
No problem, but doesn't change much with regard to my opinion.
_Replacing_ existing packages is also covered by the packaging
guidelines,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
including an explanation how to handle the "Obsoletes" and "Provides".
Even the case when to add only "Obsoletes" is commented on.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
[Fedora Users]
[Fedora Announce]
[Fedora Legacy Announce]
[Kernel]
[Fedora Legacy]
[Fedora Docs]
[Fedora Config]
[PAM]
[Red Hat Development]
[Red Hat 9]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
