package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:42:14 +0100
Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:22:40, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down
> > > (I'm not sure exactly why):
> > > 
> > > Each package requiring multiversion support would have all these
> > > versions almost the same as they are right now. The only
> > > difference would be that there is a metapackage pointing at all
> > > time to the latest version.
> > 
> > Because metapackages are considered evil in Fedora (I'm not sure
> > exactly why).
> 
> To be perfectly honest I don't know either. But I already have half a
> dozen use cases on my table where metapackages can help. Perhaps it's
> time to re- consider this policy?
> 

Metapackages have, in the past, been a problem b/c most folks were
using them in place of comps groups. The usage you're describing doesn't
sound like the end of the world but go through a test set of what
happens when someone adds obsoletes/provides to a metapackage.
-sv