On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:44:11PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > Parallel installable guile interpreters: > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-1.8/filelist > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-2.0/filelist > > So both new and old guile scripts need to be patched to call > the right binary? Or is there a symlink created? > > > Conflicting -dev package: > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-1.8-dev/filelist > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-2.0-dev/filelist > > Jan was proposing this approach too, but I thought if some packages > need to be patched to use the 1.8 guile paths, why not make one step > further and patch also the paths used in building. At least, when the > maintainers of the old packages prepare the patches, they can make > sure if the packages still work correctly. > > Our packaging guidelines seem to allow (but discourage) conflicts with > compat devel packages, if you think this will be a lot of unnecessary > work, I'm ok with the conflict. > """ Compat Package Conflicts It is acceptable to use Conflicts: in some cases involving compat packages. These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and foo-compat-devel packages need to Conflict:. Whenever possible, this should be avoided. """ at sonme point we should probably clarify that section.... I can't remember now where we wanted the line to be drawn. The fact that htis has been done in SUSE and that porting is proceeding here seems to indicate that we wouldn't want a Conflicts in this case. -Toshio > FWIW, the OpenSuse packages don't seem to have the conflict and their > libguile1-devel package has the aclocal file renamed to guile1.m4. >
Attachment:
pgpYreTT5PvR9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
