Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> You don't state the actual conflict anywhere in this mail, so my
> reply is based on my guess what the problem is.
Hello Zbyszek, thank you for your input!
To clarify, rebar (the Erlang build tool) wants to find the package
"xmlrpc" in %{_erllibdir}/xmlrpc-*/, and what it finds inside must also
follow this name. Frankly, I'm pretty new at Erlang, so this is just
based on my anecdotal evidence of playing with it for several weeks.
So the issue is that my xmlrpc and the one that's already in Fedora both
"want" to be in that same folder.
I could attempt to rename the package, but this would mean adjusting all
references to its name internally, as well as references to its name
externally in ejabberd. I'm not sure how much effort this would be, but
doing it with sed might not be the best choice because I wouldn't want
to assume that any use of the string "xmlrpc" should be replaced.
> Let me add another reason for avoiding Conflicts that has become more
> prominent over time: upgrades.
This is a compelling point that I had not considered. Users from F22 or
23 who have ejabberd and the other package will hit a conflict on
upgrading. I agree that is bad.
> Also under the new bundling guidelines [1] you can bundle the other
> version. Since the plan is to move to a different dependency soon
> anyway, this is imho tottally reasonable in this case.
This is a good point too. I think I will invest a little time in seeing
if I can figure out how to do this today.
Thanks so much for your input. I'm a new Fedora packager and I'm also
new at Erlang, so I appreciate your perspective!
--
Randy Barlow
xmpp: bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
irc: bowlofeggs on Freenode
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
