Re: qtractor moved to Fedora

>>> Hmm, so you're suggesting to simply have an identical named package >>> in both repos and have the one with the higher EVR win? That is just >>> asking for trouble. I think (if you're right about there being just >>> one binary) that you're alternatives plan is quite good actually. >>> >>> I'm a strong -1 to having packages in rpmfusion which flat out replace >>> Fedora packages. Ideally we also would not have any conflicting packages >>> either, so a +1 to the alternatives approach. >>> >> >> Although technically not a bad solution, as Nicolas says, setting up >> "alternatives" is too much work with too little gain. Why would >> anyone, with having RPMFusion enabled, want to have both of the >> qtractors installed and possibly switch to the Fedora version? >> Practically, "alternatives" does not add much value. >> >> My original plan was to pass over qtractor to some other maintainer >> from RPMFusion this summer, so I am afraid I don't really want to work >> on the "alternatives". This leaves the decision up to Brendan, I >> guess. >> >> Cheers, >> Orcan > > > The reason why we repackaged this in Fedora is so that we can include it > in the upcoming Fedora Audio spin. > > I'm not keen on the scenario where both packages are present and agree > with Orcan that the alternatives approach does not really add any benefit. > What is is so bad with a qtractor-freeworld replacing the Fedora version? > Presumably anyone who installs this package knows what they are doing and > why. The problem is that to replace the package, it will need a higher EVR, and then when Fedora bumps version the Fedora version may become newer and then yum will upgrade to the Fedora version removing the mp3 support.

So the best solution is either using alternatives or a conflict. I'm sure a conflict + provides (in case anything depends on qtractor) will work fine and that is a very simple solution. Having 2 packages with the same name in 2 different repo is just asking for trouble...