[Fedora-packaging] Multiple file ownership allowed nowadays?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:05:33PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.01.2012, 15:06 +0200 schrieb Panu Matilainen:
> > On 01/30/2012 02:31 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2012, 23:38 -0500 schrieb Jon Stanley:
> > >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Christoph Wickert
> > >> <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I wonder if this rule is still needed. I know I'd loose backward
> > >>> compatibility with older rpm versions, but I don't want make a
> > >>
> > >> I agree that a -common subpackage is silly for this, but are any of
> > >> the RPM versions that this *wouldn't* work with still in supported
> > >> releases?
> > >
> > > Not in Fedora.
> > >
> > >> The only one I'd be concerned with is RHEL5, but I think even that
> > >> works right, no?
> > >
> > > I haven't tested it, but based on my experience with multi-arch file
> > > conflicts I *guess* it will not work on RHEL 5.
> > 
> > Sharing identical files between packages has always been allowed in rpm, 
> > that's not an issue.
> 
> Thanks for this clarification, Panu.
> 
> Before I go ahead and commit my changes, can I have an 'official'
> statement from the packaging committee? Should I file a trac ticket?
> 
Yes, please do -- I can't think of a reason we wouldn't update the
guidelines to allow this usage but I'm not the only FPC member and someone
else on the Committee may remember some other problem thatI don't.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20120130/de66b5ae/attachment.sig>