On 16 October 2017 at 08:13, Till Hofmann <thofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll submit librealsense1 as a separate
On 10/15/2017 08:08 PM, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me, but I'll add that it
> would be good to file a Change Request for this too, so that users and
> other developers have a heads up about the change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
>
package and file a Change Request.
Just to be clear on the order: I should probably submit the Change
Request first and then submit the package, right?
Kind regards,
Till
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Doesn't really matter as it'll be going through package review and be gated somewhat by that.
In the Change just mention that it is going through review, and the Change is contingent on that review completing.
You should probably include the backout plan of the epoch bump just in case, unlikely though it seems, the review bumps into a roadblock or $life happens and delays you getting everything ready in time for the F28 changes checkpoint.
It'd also be helpful to have a current 'dnf repoquery --alldeps --whatrequires' of your library so you can have a list of what might need rebuilding.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
