On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:00:15PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: I am not sure that it is needed. My plan would be to propose patches for the package spec files to have them Provides server(smtp) and when it is ready for all, provide patches for the dependent packages. The Provides is already removed from ssmtp, so this only makes 4+4 packages to modify, that seems to me not to require to set up a features page. I would like to have it done way before F-9, and even before the alpha. I am not violently against going through the features process, but I don't think that this is needed here. My proposal is to keep the old dependencies as Provides as long as we want backward compatibility (at least in F-9), but don't add more, and also set all the Requires according to the proposal. -- Pat

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:52:59PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Very nice. -- Pat

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:07:35PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: I think that it is a bit different here. And while we can say don't remove it before F-9, I think that the virtual provides can be left in by packagers if the want to. In my opinion virtual provides should be more backward compatible than package names. So maybe something along: ''' When you implement the new Provides, please leave the old ones so that third party packages that have grown to depend on them can continue to function, at least for F-9. After F-9 keeping or removing the provides is left to the packager. The Requires for all Fedora packages should be changed to use the new provides by F-9, however. ''' -- Pat