On 03/03/2014 10:13 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 28.2.2014 20:51, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
>> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:37 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2014 15:38, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> This should not break builds of any reasonably current software.
>>> libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
>>> google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.117-1.x86_64
>>>
>>> I guess not much we can do there, other than maintain a compat package
>>> -- right? :(
>> Since google-chrome-stable is not part of the distribution I do not see
>> why we should keep a compat package.
>>
>>
>
> Not that I am Chrome user, but AFAIK, the compat-packages are exactly
> for third party stuff used on Fedora.
My sentiments exactly. In Fedora package collection, we can rebuild /
fix up all the packages to make use of the new ABI, but the main reason
to have compat packages is the 3rd party stuff.
Workstation is trying to come up with ways to offer a stable base
platform that 3rd party developers could target [1], and in my opinion
libgcrypt should be part of that base ABI.
I would be happy to look the other way if we had Chromium in the Fedora
repo, but since we don't, I think it would make sense to try and make
Chrome's life easier by keeping the underlying libraries stable. After
all, the "fix" that would come from the Chrome / Chromium side would
likely be bundling the libgcrypt binaries with the upstream rpm.
--
Kalev,
also not a Chrome user.
[1] See the "3rd party software" bullet point in the Workstation PRD:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD#Overall_plans_and_policies_for_the_product
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
