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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:48:12 AM +0200 Axel Thimm 
<Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> as an update beforehand: this discussion stirred up a review about
> krbafs-utils in Fedora which ended in this package being dropped for
> future Fedora (and thus RHEL) releases. E.g. it is now a discussion
> about how to deal with the *legacy* of krbafs-utils in RHEL3/4 and
> FC6/F7.
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:32:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman 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?
>
> Why would that matter?

Well, if the package is only useful when AFS is installed, and conflicts 
with the only AFS, that's sort of silly.



>> OTOH, since we provide conflicting versions of the same file, RPM
>> should _already_ be treating them as conflicting,
>
> Yes, but *file conflicts" are a bad thing in comparison to package
> conflicts. The latter can be taken in consideration by the depsolvers.

That's a good point.

>> Trying to obsolete krbafs-utils is almost certainly a bad idea.
>
> Why? The upstream vendor also agrees that krbafs-utils has been
> rotting in the distribution for far too long and dropped it for future
> ones (he can't simply remove it for released ones, of course).

OK.  This makes it not a bad idea.

The problem is that if you claim to obsolete another package, but you 
aren't actually that package's successor and there continue to be new 
versions of it, then things start to get very confusing.  As long as there 
is agreement that krbafs-utils should go away, than obsoleting it is 
probably the right thing.

-- Jeff