[Catalog-sig] PEP 345 Update

[P.J. Eby]

At 05:12 PM 8/24/2010 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>In the same line of thought, I believe it would be
>better to change the "obsoletes" field to "obsoleted-by", i.e. the
>direction changes and gives the author of the obsoleted package
>full control over what he thinks is a better version of his
>package, rather than have some other author make that choice for
>him.
>
>That way you avoid the social implications of one package
>trying to compete against another by means of the "obsoletes"
>field.

This is a great idea.  Even if it were a purely informational field 
(i.e., not used by any installation tool except as a user advisory), 
I would actually have used this field in my own use cases.

+1 for replacing Obsoletes with Obsoleted-By.


>Could you perhaps point me to a list of things you had in mind
>with the "conflicts" field ? Perhaps I'm just missing the main
>idea behind this field.

If so, then I am, too.  :)