man-pages-de-1.7-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/man-pages-de-1.7-2.fc21

man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21

I will prefer to discuss on bugzilla rather on bodhi update comments.

Mario,
   Here is what happening using dnf with man-pages-de-1.7-2.fc21 update. 
Error: Transaction check error:
  file /usr/share/man/de/man1/uptime.1.gz from install of man-pages-de-1.7-2.fc21.noarch conflicts with file from package procps-ng-3.3.10-2.fc21.x86_64

One can easily test this before or after official build of this fix and when decided procps-ng should keep the man pages then ensuring prior installed procps-ng-3.3.10-2.fc21 package. So, It looked like man-pages-de-1.7-2.fc21 will not be fixing file conflicts.

I also analyzed how man-pages-fr package works,how its fix worked. The reason to remove lots of man pages is to ensure in future man-pages-de tarball if contained one conflicts file then other can be included and to avoid this I added this. However, I closed bug man-pages-pl by providing reasoning that it at all not contain any conflicted man pages so they will never be added in its future releases.

I am sorry for the changelog change but when I looked at it, I see I have not removed your changelog entry but the date got changed which can be fixed in f21 branch easily. Either you can do it or if you want I can fix it.

-* Fri Oct 03 2014 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann> - 1.7-2
+* Wed Sep 24 2014 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann> - 1.7-2

Note man-pages-fr is removing conflicting man pages in %install section whereas I added here in %prep section which is more convenient.

Package man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-12198/man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

(In reply to Parag from comment #3)
> I also analyzed how man-pages-fr package works,how its fix worked. The
> reason to remove lots of man pages is to ensure in future man-pages-de
> tarball if contained one conflicts file then other can be included and to
> avoid this I added this. However, I closed bug man-pages-pl by providing
> reasoning that it at all not contain any conflicted man pages so they will
> never be added in its future releases.

I'm involved in upstream development of man-pages-de. Mainly we concentrate our effort to the Linux programming manuals and related stuff from the man-pages package. The man pages from procps-ng came from external contributors, and we won't accept other procps-based translations in the future. Only free.1.po and uptime.1.po need to be removed, no more than that.

> 
> I am sorry for the changelog change but when I looked at it, I see I have
> not removed your changelog entry but the date got changed which can be fixed
> in f21 branch easily. Either you can do it or if you want I can fix it.
> 
> -* Fri Oct 03 2014 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann> - 1.7-2
> +* Wed Sep 24 2014 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann> - 1.7-2
> 
I'll fix it in the next update, which will come in a few weeks, some time before Debian Jessie gets frozen (where man-pages-de is based on).

Again, nice to have provenpackagers in many cases, but please wait for the answer from package maintainers or co-maintainers more than a few hours before you change something. I'm not online 24 hours a day to response immediately.

Okay. I will wait before making any further changes to your packages. Actually I got used to with what Gnome maintainers used to do, they do not wait for the fix from actual package maintainer that they want to see in Gnome packages.

I see you are upstream developer so I have some suggestions about upstream source
1) this package can be built successfully with just BuildRequires: po4a
So if I look only from packaging perspective then upstream may want to add rules in configure script to make sure it will fail for other packages if they are not in spec BuildRequires. 

2) you may want to remove all entries in upstream for procps.links file reference in Makefile*

Other thing as the file conficts is fixed now, I will not work further on this package but I did build this package in mock with several combinations of BuildRequires and already concluded that if this package only contains

BuildRequires: po4a
BuildRequires: isdn4k-utils

you will see uptime man page packaged if you are not going to remove it manually in %prep

So when I tried to find the connection between "BuildRequires: isdn4k-utils" and uptime.1.gz man page, I saw that when you add BR: isdn4k-utils, root.log showed it installed procps-ng also and thus uptime.1.gz
This is the reason why -2 build failed to fix this bug.

(In reply to Parag from comment #6)
> 1) this package can be built successfully with just BuildRequires: po4a
> So if I look only from packaging perspective then upstream may want to add
> rules in configure script to make sure it will fail for other packages if
> they are not in spec BuildRequires. 
> 
It is not intended to enforcing build the not man-pages based files (coreutils, findutils etc.). Keep in mind, not all of the extra dependencies are available from all distributions, Mageia doesn't have recutils, for example, and Fedora doesn't have binkd, lilo and sysvinit-tools. The upstream po files will be updated from Debian packages, so a packager from another distribution could decide to drop some package requirements due to differing versions (for example, util-linux is in Debian v2.20 from 2011, while we already ship the current v2.25). In that case sometimes very "sparse" files will be built, and even file can fall below the threshold of 80% for po4a and the file doesn't get build. But anyway, we will further discuss this upstream.

> 2) you may want to remove all entries in upstream for procps.links file
> reference in Makefile*
> 
This can be done on packager's side only. As already mentioned, man-pages-de is in fact a Debian project, and procps-3.3.10 hasn't reached the Debian repos, nor in Sid neither even in Experimental. So the procps-ng man pages will remain in the upstream Git for the next years, until the successor of the upcoming Jessie gets frozen.

> Other thing as the file conficts is fixed now, I will not work further on
> this package but I did build this package in mock with several combinations
> of BuildRequires and already concluded that if this package only contains
> 
> BuildRequires: po4a
> BuildRequires: isdn4k-utils
> 
> you will see uptime man page packaged if you are not going to remove it
> manually in %prep
> 
> So when I tried to find the connection between "BuildRequires: isdn4k-utils"
> and uptime.1.gz man page, I saw that when you add BR: isdn4k-utils, root.log
> showed it installed procps-ng also and thus uptime.1.gz
> This is the reason why -2 build failed to fix this bug.

I was also a bit confused about the presence of uptime.1 after removing procps-ng from BR. But why the translated free.1 doesn't get built although it comes from the same package...? That's strange.

Thank you for the explanation. 

I see procps-ng provides man1 free page whereas man-pages-de provides man3 free page.

man-pages-de-1.7-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.