Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/atkac/baracuda/baracuda.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/atkac/baracuda/baracuda-1.0-0.1.prealpha.fc9.src.rpm Description: baracuda is forked RealVNC source. It's going to become replacement for RealVNC and developed and maintained better because RealVNC focuses on their Enterprise VNC which is not free.
Shouldn't the Obsoletes: vnc Provides: vnc be versioned ?
(In reply to comment #1) > Shouldn't the > Obsoletes: vnc > Provides: vnc > be versioned ? Not needed. It obsoletes all our vnc builds so I don't see any reason why add version.
because someone might wish to install the commercial version in parallel with yours ?
Hm, pretty unlikely but someone might do something like that. I've added version and also "Conflicts: vnc{,-server}". SRPM and spec is updated
I don't get it. Could you please explain the technical reason(s) why would baracuda and vnc (and their server parts) conflict ? I can run happily here vmware's vnc server, krfb and vnc-server all in the same time. And I bet I could also start FreeNX if I wanted to.
baracuda is forked vnc source. All binaries and scripts have same name as in vnc package. This is conflict. You cannot have installed baracuda and vnc simulateously due same names.
Are we sure there's no trademark issue with the Baracuda spam-filtering product?
Baracuda software has only one 'r' and Barracuda networks (and his products) has double 'rr' in title so this should not cause any problem :)
Uh, trademarks are not only about identical names, but also about "confusingly similar" names.
Unversioned obsoletes are not acceptable. The naming guidelines explain how to handle obsoletes: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d
It seems the initial links are invalid now.
Baracuda died because in the end I joined to TightVNC group and development done in baracuda is going to be merged to TightVNC tree. Closing