[Scitech] Re: Orphaning openbabel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Zbigniew,

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:53 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:53:03AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> […]
> I think it makes sense to add a new 'openbabel3' package. Like Kevin wrote
> in the other mail, it seems likely that some packages will depend on
> the old version for the foreseeable future. Python recently switched
> to a theme where it the "main" package has a number in the version [1].
> This works nicely when there are multiple incompatible versions...

That might be worth discussing with upstream. In the meantime, could
the executables in /usr/bin get a "3" appended to their names or would
that just break anything that might need them?

> > How do we deal with the complications of having both
> > of them around, especially since most of the binaries have the same
> > name?
> Explicit Conflicts? Unless there's a strong need to install packages
> in parallel, that seems like the easiest option.

Whatever's inside openbabel-libs and openbabel-devel can co-exist with
the files from the other version, so we're left with incompatibilities
between the binaries, the gui, docs (trivial) and python or any other
language binding I haven't discovered.
(Btw, when I run "repoquery --repo=fedora{,-source} --whatrequires
{ruby,perl,python3}-openbabel", I get no hits. Am I doing it wrong, or
could we stop caring for perl and ruby, that I'm not sure if they're
still there?)
At least packages that buildrequire openbabel or that require the
libraries are safe from breakage for now. However, our collection of
chemistry-related software is rather limited; slimming it down further
by splitting packages into mutually exclusive subgroups won't make
people's lives any easier (in our ecosystem at least).

> > - I suppose I could take over from Dominik (with the hope that not
> > many things will break down in the following year) the packages in
> > Fedora, but not EPEL and friends. Who wants to do that?

Dominik, if you want, you can add me (alexpl) to the repo. Is anyone
interested in maintaining the EPEL branches?

> > - Has any of the maintainers of dependent packages that are dead-ish
> > upstream looked at porting them to OB 3?

scitech mailing list -- scitech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to scitech-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/scitech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Triage]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux