On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 16:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > 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. Well, I don't mind doing that, but I'd like to be sure there's a broad consensus that this is the way to go first. I don't think 'duelling drafts' is the best way to decide on what direction to go; I'd rather make sure we agree on the direction first, and use the drafting process simply to refine how we express that direction. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
