[OpenAFS-devel] Re: pagsh in krbafs vs openafs

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2007 08:19:15 PM -0700 Russ Allbery 
<rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:39:31PM -0400, Jason Edgecombe wrote:
>
>>> what about putting a "conflicts" or "obsoletes" rpm field in there?
>
>> If that solves the issues I'm all for it.
>
> That's probably a good idea.

We certainly could conflict with krbafs-utils, though that would be a bit 
odd, since what other AFS is there for those distributions?  OTOH, since we 
provide conflicting versions of the same file, RPM should _already_ be 
treating them as conflicting, and since that's the only true conflict, the 
only thing that asserting a conflict would do is uselessly insure you can't 
install the two packages at the same time even if _they_ rename away the 
conflicting files.

Trying to obsolete krbafs-utils is almost certainly a bad idea.

Note that Fedora does have alternatives, which could certainly be used to 
resolve this conflict in future releases.  However, it requires all 
packages providing the conflicting files to participate, so coordination 
with the maintainer of krbafs-utils would be required.  Unfortunately, the 
other mechanism Debian provides for dealing with this sort of thing 
(redirects) does not exist in RPM-land.

-- Jeff