On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:58:28PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 12:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > """ > > 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. > > That's funny, I was going to say the opposite...I think we should > clarify it to say that in the cases where it makes sense to have a > libfoo-compat package, there's no need to bend over backwards to try and > make libfoo-devel and libfoo-compat-devel be parallel installable, > because there's just no important use case for it. There is no reason > you'd need to compile one code base against two different versions of > the same library, so there's no case where you would need to have both > -devel packages installed simultaneously. > > I think we should be strict about trying not to package multiple majors > of the same library wherever possible, but where it's pretty much > unavoidable, I think it's perfectly fine for the -devel packages to > conflict. In fact I think it's better to leave them conflicting than to > hack them up with patches to make them not conflict; that's always going > to be a hack job, nothing clean. The library thinks it's called libfoo, > not libfoo2 or libfoo-compat. I think the guidelines should reflect > this...they should explicitly say that a -devel package conflict is fine > and indeed recommended in the specific case of packaging multiple majors > of a single library. > Feel free to submit a draft -- the conflicts guidelines haen't been worked on in several years so there's many "new" people on the FPC. I believe that mschwendt was one of the people who had a lot of influence on the current guideline if you'd like to get some feedback on your draft. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpFuhod2dl6D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
