On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:52 PM, William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > El 15/10/2017 10:36 a. m., "Neal Gompa" <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann > <thofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the >> update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch? >> >> background: >> I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the >> new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera >> models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we >> should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit >> librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do >> the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide >> to version 1. >> > > I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package, > instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably > be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to > the newer one. > > > And add Provides: librealsense2 so people can find the same package name in > debianland and fedoraland. > > I have seem than the README file of *a lot* of app list requirements and > build requeriments using the names of packages in Debian/Ubuntu and some > times it is not trivial to find the equivalent package name for epel/fedora > This doesn't actually make sense to do. People should be searching for librealsense-devel for building against, and Debian ships librealsense-dev, so it more or less matches. Runtime libraries are automatically picked up by the dependency generator, so people should never need to specify it. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
