package conflict with source package but not with binary package

[Till Hofmann]

Hi all,

I'm preparing Bear [1] as a Fedora package. Unfortunately, the package
name bear is already taken by the bear engine [2], so I'm considering
the best way to resolve this. Ubuntu [3], Debian [4], Arch (AUR) [5],
and Mint [6] all package the compilation database (i.e., the package I'm
working on) as bear, while the game engine (the current bear in Fedora)
is usually packaged as bear-factory. IMHO, providing the compilation
database as bear would be very beneficial, and anything else might be
confusing for the users.

I noticed that bear does not actually provide a bear package, but only
bear-engine, bear-devel, and bear-factory.

So, I'm wondering:
1. Can I add "Provides: bear = %{version}-%{release}", as bear does not
provide a bear binary package? To me, this seems risky and confusing,
but it would solve the issue.
2. If not, would it make sense to rename the current bear (source)
package into something else, e.g., bear-factory, so we can use 'bear'
for the compilation database?

I also asked upstream about possible alternatives [7], and the best
answer seems to be buildear, but imho that's far from ideal.

Kind regards,
Till

[1] https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bear
[3] https://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/devel/bear
[4] https://packages.debian.org/sid/bear
[5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/bear/
[6] https://community.linuxmint.com/software/view/bear
[7] https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear/issues/198

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Hi, Till.

On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 17:27, Till Hofmann wrote:
[...]
> So, I'm wondering:
> Can I add "Provides: bear = %{version}-%{release}", as bear does not
>
> provide a bear binary package? To me, this seems risky and confusing,
> but it would solve the issue.
> 2. If not, would it make sense to rename the current bear (source)
> package into something else, e.g., bear-factory, so we can use 'bear'
> for the compilation database?

Option 2 makes most sense in light of what you wrote. Thank you for
the thorough research on this matter. If I were the current bear
package maintainer, I'd agree with your reasoning.

Regards,
Dominik

[Till Hofmann]

On 12/30/2017 09:44 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Hi, Till.
>
> On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 17:27, Till Hofmann wrote:
> [...]
> > So, I'm wondering:
> > Can I add "Provides: bear = %{version}-%{release}", as bear does not
> >
> > provide a bear binary package? To me, this seems risky and confusing,
> > but it would solve the issue.
> > 2. If not, would it make sense to rename the current bear (source)
> > package into something else, e.g., bear-factory, so we can use 'bear'
> > for the compilation database?
>
> Option 2 makes most sense in light of what you wrote. Thank you for
> the thorough research on this matter. If I were the current bear
> package maintainer, I'd agree with your reasoning.

I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539207.

Kind regards,
Till