> The advantage for packagers is just temporary, as long as the > (supposedly) older library they still use is maintained. One day, they > will need to move forward. This is just postponing the inevitable. And for the same reason we have compat packages, we can't always honor the First principle because upstream projects update their dependencies requirements at different paces and not all dependencies are maintained with forward compatibility in mind. Software projects in general jump the trigger too easily when it comes to adding unneeded dependencies, and dependency graphs grow with quadratic complexity. I like the idea of package maintainers getting involved with their upstream projects, and I also understand that trying to add a single package may sometimes (often?) result in having to also maintain dozens of other packages and that getting involved with all upstreams doesn't scale. I consider compat packages to be a last resort solution and don't see the value of modules. But again I understand the rationale and appreciate the effort (I simply disagree). Better tooling won't cut it, we also need more maintainers and ideally maintainers from upstream projects that understand the challenges of software downstream distribution. But again it doesn't scale when upstream projects face dozens of distributions. What's really inevitable is conflicting agendas (and limited resources) of so many parties. Dridi _______________________________________________ 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
