On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:21:17 +0330 Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayat.fwd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear all, > I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. ...snip... > Proposal: let's make it possible to have multiple versions of the > same library installed, as far as their .so version permits that. > > 1. Include the base version of the library into its package name. So, > instead of libfoo we can have libfoo2, libfoo3, libfoo4. > 2. No reviews are required for new libfooX packages (as it is not > required right now when you update your libfoo package). But the thing is, it's really difficult to get right details about the new package. Forget to change a name somewhere or a provides or obsoletes. People mess this up all the time. Also, this would vary library to library. Some things change slowly and only support 1 release, some things (cough *ffmpeg*) change version every release. So in some cases 3 is too many, and in others not enough. > 3. For each Fedora release, there is libfoo/libfoo-devel packages > which Require the "default" version of libfoo packages for that > release. For example, libfoo.fc20/libfoo-devel.fc20 will Require > libfoo2/libfoo2-devel; for F21 libfoo3/libfoo3-devel and for > F22/Rawhide libfoo4/libfoo4-devel. So, you would need t move these 'default' provides to different versions on different branches? Doable, but again, someone could merge back a change and mess up this, so it sounds pretty delicate. ...snip... > For -devel packages, two methods can be allowed: > 1. Simple: -devel packages conflict with each other, so while you can > have multiple versions of libfoo installed, you can have only a > single version of libfoo-devel installed Bad idea. Conflicts are horrible and to be avoided. > 2. Flexible: Provide the possibility of installing multiple -devel > versions, and a method to select the "default" one, like the > alternatives system. More complexity... but also there is: 3. What we do today: make sure all versions are parallel installable. > More details can be discussed, but I think it's enough for now. I > want to see what others think about the whole idea. Details can be > worked out if the idea seems interesting. > > Q: Can't a packager do it already? Why propose it as a 'proposal'? > A: Yes, he can, but it'll be hard; mainly because he'll need to put > new versions of the library for review. Also, I suggest it as a > 'recommended practice' for packaging libraries. So, the gist of the proposal is to avoid reviewing new compat packages? Is this really such a burden? > IMHO, this method will have many advantages, and can make it much > easier to provide COPR repositories or similar to experiment with new > things on a stable Fedora release without affecting other installed > software. Also, it might make it possible to install and experiment > with some packages from Rawhide/next Fedora release directly on your > current release. As a developer, it makes the version of available > libraries for development less bounded to Fedora version. kevin
Attachment:
pgp1l2bGW8jOd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
