On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:02 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just to make sure, I'll quote myself from my initial response: > > Dne 4.4.2017 v 08:05 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Please do these changes just in Rawhide. And you think in Rawhide you are free to violate upgrade paths? Breaking dependencies in Rawhide is bad, too. Even if only temporarily. It could be possible to focus on Rawhide only, break it temporarily, fix it afterwards, but then the js-jquery* package maintainers will need to be very careful with any updates or upgrades they push to older dists. Without sane Obsoletes/Provides pairs, there will be problems. > > You mean those ancient packages? Some even from Red Hat Linux! > > > > Some of the later ones have had Obsoletes in them temporarily, > > but it is common practice to remove Obsoletes tags after some dist > > releases. The %changelog mentions that sometimes. > > Certainly not the case for libpng15: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libpng15.git/log/ Looking at only one old package may not be a good example. You don't know whether this package has been introduced with implicit conflicts with the other libpng package and whether the packagers have hacked their way out of that mess. And as I wrote "%changelog mentions that sometimes", if you dig a bit more, you can find changelog comments on Obsoletes also in some of the libpng packages. Btw, libpng12 and libpng10, for example, had been introduced with explicit Conflicts tags as a lazy solution for the problem of packaging multiple releases of something that ought to be parallel-installable. > But you are right that there is one trace of "Provides: libpng.so.3" > from 2003 in changelog. Sounds bad, too. SONAME deps are automatic, but maybe there has been a hack with symlinks for ABI compatiblity or such. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
