Bug 246444
Summary: | EPEL python-imaging conflicts with RHEL one | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne> |
Component: | python-imaging | Assignee: | José Matos <jamatos> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | el5 | CC: | jgranado |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-07-12 17:52:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Janne Blomqvist
2007-07-02 09:57:54 UTC
As I understand it the EPEL project was founded on the base of providing complementary packages to the fedora based RedHat Enterprise Linux. When I go look for this package in the RHEL repos I see it appears in the RHEL client so, IMO there is no need for this package in EPEL. Am I missing something here????? No. I requested the building for EPEL 5 since the package was already in EPEL 4. I missed to notice that it was already in one of the RHEL repos. :-( So the right think is to request the administrative removal of this package from EPEL 5. Regarding the subpackages python-imaging-sane and python-imaging-tk the easier way is to ask for their build in upstream RHEL... As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240415#c5, I'm closing this bug as a not a bug. for EPEL/el5 Wait, what happens for those who have 5Server? I think the solution is that the version that is built for EPEL-3/4/5 is the same as upstream which in this case would be the 1.1.5 version. Building that RPM while not 'the latest' would make sure that any updates/security fixes upstream are caught and conflicts do not occur. Does this situation actually break something? In EPEL there are two pkgs that depend on python-imaging (Plone and python-docutils). AFAIK they use only the image module from PIL. Moreover I went through the comments of the spec file and http://effbot.org/zone/pil-changes-116.htm, I did not see anything that suggested a backward compatibility issue. regarding comment #5: If Someone has python-imaging from EPEL/el4(1.1.6) and wants to upgrade to EPEL/el5 (1.1.5) yum will not recognize EPEL/el5 as greater. This could be harmless in some occasions but I'd rather avoid nvr inconsistencies. This basically applies for people that already have python-imaging from EPEL/el4. |