preventing known-damaging third-party to fedora/epel package upgrade?

[Björn Persson]

Paul Wouters wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 11:38 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > So, this makes me wonder.  Is there a good reason rpm doesn't check the
> > new package and the old package for having the same file during an
> > upgrade, and simply use the flags on the incoming package if they're
> > both present?
> 
> What if the incoming package accidentally remove the "noreplace"? You
> wouldn't want to wipe out the existing configs in that case either.

Perhaps the union of old flags and new flags should be used?

> I think usually these cases fall under "unsupported".

That's no excuse for not doing the right thing (provided that there is an 
objectively right thing to do).

Björn Persson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120712/15c6a238/attachment.sig>