On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 06:14:48PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > This thinking sounds even worse - it is not only about preservation cruft in > Provides, but it prepares things so that it is usual/expected and easier to > ship cruft as several versions of packages, and thus more or less encourages > it. I thought we had guidelines how to do compat-* packages properly and > some guidelines about their life cycle but it appears I'm wrong or just can't > find it now :( There is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JeremyKatz/DraftCompatPackages but I don't know if it was ratified. Even if it was not ratified FESCo supported the part about vetoing a compat package if the primary maintainer is not ok twice for compat-python for zope. There was also http://markmail.org/message/lu6votnbktff4peo?q=fedora+compat+packaging+libraries&page=1&refer=5hs7vskgzu26oxt4 but there is no conclusion as far as I can tell. I guess that my personal opinion doesn't matter much (especially now that I left fedora), but I think that having packages in fedora link against compat packages should be avoided as much as possible, but compat packages for fedora users should be considered as regular packages (with a need for parallel installation not to disturb main packages). I would favor a policy to have compat packages maintainers be in initial-CC of main package to help triaging bugs that are in fact for the compat package. In any case there is already some precedent of compat packages still used in fedora and here for a long time, glib and gtk+. Also the kde people keep precedent kdelibs quite a long tie for the benefit of fedora users. Last there is libnet10 which is here since 2003, and found a new maintainer when I orphaned it though nothing in fedora itself links against libnet10. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
