Seems like splitting langpacks subpackages in all evolution packages few minutes ago just started.
No generall agreement for such changes, ignoring already mentioned arguments.
Seems only just because "we can".
Guys if you are bored just please undress, sit down next to your clothes and watch your cloths. This will be way more productive.
kloczek
PS. Did anyone notice that Fedora in popularity ranking on distrowatch.com dropped recently?
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 20:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:07:34PM +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> I did with evolution core packages what I thought is the best. I do not
> use weak dependencies, I define a hard dependency between the langpacks
> and the binary package, both ways, thus users get either both or none
> of them. That makes the change backward compatible, while still helping
> with disk usage on build servers and mirrors.
There is a better way to preserve backwards compat:
define Obsoletes: %{name} < [version] in both the main package and the
langpacks packages. Then dnf will install both on upgrade, and users
can still uninstall langpacks.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260394 for some discussion.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | Tel: 0774 1209067 | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
