On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > Incompatible to what? If there are conflicts between ATrpms' packages > > and others from the N thousand official packages, please report > > them and we'll fix them. > > One concrete source of incompatibility is that you use Debian-style > versioning (e.g. libquicktime0) for some library packages, which is against > Fedora guidelines (in fact, IIRC a guideline change you proposed to that > effect was rejected) and which can confuse yum in some cases. I think it was rather forgotten and withdrawn, but that's rejected nonetheless. The reson I use these conventions is because they actually increase compatibility: When repo X, repo Y and repo Z (one of them may be Fedora, the others two 3rd party ones) have built foo, baz and wuz against libbar.so.1, libbar.so.2 and libbar.so.3 these runtime packages make sure that they can all coexist w/o one repo enforcing a full rebuild on the other. This will even help Fedora, as the reason Debian/Mandriva introduced them was for being able to cope with tons of packages when a dependency does an sobump. Currently in Fedora whenever a package with many dependent other packages changes soname, we need to go yelling around to other packagers and are only able to do an upgrade of this kind in rawhide. So for Fedora I suggested it w/o looking at 3rd parties, but I'm using it at ATrpms for better 3rd party support. See for example the x264 libs. Any 3rd party repo using them is doomed to be incompatible to the other one. Unless we would all use libfoo<so> style packaging. In a nutshell: This is done for better compatibility, not worse. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpTHwIY8aCHH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
