On 14. 06. 21 14:40, Major Hayden wrote:
My python-azure-common package that just finished a review[3] is version
1.1.27, so I would assume that the python-azure-common package would supersede
the python-azure-sdk package since it provides a newer version of the
azure-common module. (Is this true?)
Not sure what you mean by "supersede" in this context, but I assume it wouldn't.
Let me break it down:
Would the python3-azure-common package automatically replace python3-azure-sdk
during upgrades? No.
Would the python3-azure-common package implicitly conflict with
python3-azure-sdk? Possibly, if they install to overlapping locations on the
filesystem.
If a package (build)requires python3dist(azure-common) (or
python3.Xdist(azure-common)), would it get python3-azure-common instead of
python3-azure-sdk? Possibly, if python3-azure-sdk isn't pulled in by another
requirement. The fact that "common" sorts earlier than "sdk" alphabetically
plays in your favor :D
Here are my main questions:
1) How do I bring in these smaller packages carefully to
avoid disruption?
First of all, use a side tag:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO#Multiple_Packages
Also, make sure to test the upgrade path. E.g. by:
I. Installing the existing package versions on Fedora rawhide.
II. Adding your copr repo.
III. Testing `dnf upgrade` and also testing `dnf upgrade <individual_package>`
When in trouble, add explicit Conflicts and/or Obsoletes as needed. If you
share the error you get in (III.), I can help with this step.
2) How do I convert the python-azure-sdk package into a no-files
metapackage that brings in all of the SDK components?
I. Bump the metadata to a newer version-release (artificial?).
II. Remove all sources and contents of %prep/%build/%install.
III. Remove all listed %files but keep the %files section.
IV. Adapt other metdata like description, summary etc.
V. Add the requirements that brings in all of the SDK components.
VI. Use `%py_provides python3-azure-sdk` in the python3-azure-sdk package, as
this is required for Python meta-packages without files.
(Is this even a good idea?)
That depends. Would the users still want to `dnf install python3-azure-sdk`? If
no, I would rather retire and obsolete the package from the relevant
replacements. If you Obsolete a package from N other packages, they replace the
obsoleted package during upgrade (all of them).
3) How should I go about getting these smaller packages reviewed?
The majority of them are almost identical.
I'd proceed normally, unless it's hundreds or thousands. How many reviews do
you need? We can organize a sprint :)
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
