Re: Modularity is still confusing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mattia Verga
<mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Il 04/10/18 17:22, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto:
> >
> > If FreePascal and Lazarus of the correct version are available in the
> > standard repository (i.e. you don't have to specify a non-default
> > stream of a module to get the correct version), you do not need to
> > specify them explicitly in the module definition.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Just another question: what about if I need to use different .specfiles
> for different Fedora releases?
> For example, if FreePascal is upgraded in F29 and not in F28 I may need
> to patch Skychart sources differently for F29 and F28...

It depends on the case. It *might* be an example of when you might
decide that it's better to standardize on one version of FreePascal as
a dependency and make it a module. So if you wanted to standardize on
the upgraded version, you would create a FreePascal module stream for
F28 of the newer version and have your Skychart module require the
newer one there. Then you only have to maintain support for one of
them.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux