(original) (raw)

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:

In any case, as I said before, I don't have an issue with the fields
all being declared as being for informational purposes only. My issue
is only with recommendations for automated tool behavior that permit
one project's author to exercise authority over another project's
installation.

Skipping over a lot of other replies between you and I because I think that we disagree on a lot but that's all moot if we agree here.

I have no problems with Obsoletes, Conflicts, Requires, and Provides types of fields are marked informational. In fact, there are many cases where packages are overzealous in their use of Requires right now that cause distributions to patch the dependency information in the package metadata.

-Toshio