On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:27:30 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there
> > any reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in
> > the packaging guidelines?
>
> There is: I do not want to have to pointlessly edit my specfile each
> time some soname changes, and waste a failed build (i.e., ultimately
> MY time). The other packages will need to be rebuilt ANYWAY. They may
> as well do so when the Rawhide broken dependencies report comes in.
> Rawhide is supposed to be a place for development, not something that
> always works for end users.
Why would it be a pointless edit? Surely you are editing it to update
to the new version, why wouldn't you also just edit it to adjust the
so files? or do you not test your version upgrade specs before firing
off official builds?
If you tell people about the soname bump or rebuild the affected
packages there's no need to break everything, you can be proactive
instead of reactive.
> By the way, all this talk about keeping Rawhide usable is all the
> more ridiculous given that we allow broken trunk snapshots of GCC
> into Rawhide which fail to compile packages due to known regressions
> such as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241 (which is
> keeping me from building QtWebEngine and testing the improvements I
> am working on). THOSE are the changes that hinder development and
> thus Rawhide's actual purpose, not a broken dependency in one day's
> Rawhide compose.
There's a difference IMHO between a known bug (which is actively being
worked by upstream) that prevents you from compiling and a known bug
that prevents already existing things from working.
kevin
Attachment:
pgpySaM6i0Az4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
