On 06/12/2022 15:56, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 06. 12. 22 v 16:44 Terry Barnaby napsal(a):
On 06/12/2022 10:40, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 06 December 2022 at 07:43, Terry Barnaby wrote:
[...]
My view is that compat versions of the commonly used shared libraries
for programs that are used on Redhat7 should be kept available until
most people are not producing programs for that system at least
+nyears and then I guess Redhat8 once that really becomes a core base
platform that external people use. A core list of these (there are
only a few) could be kept somewhere and when one is to be depreciated,
or users see problems when Fedora is updated, a decision on this can
be then made with that info. This would keep the Fedora system
relevant for more users needs without too much work.
Well, that is still *some* work and someone would have to do it. Are
you
volunteering?
In the case of ncurses, it is really just putting back into the SPEC
file that which was removed for F37 plus the extra storage on mirrors
for the compat RPM's.
If it's "just" that, why don't you do it yourself? Obviously, the
current ncurses maintainer decided it was time to drop the old v5 ABI
compat libs from the package. However, nothing is stopping you from
picking that up and maintaining an "ncurses5" package for as long as
you
need it.
Regards,
Dominik
Well in this case I have created a suitable compat lib, all I did was
re-introduce the bits to the SPEC file that removed the building of
the compat lib and we are fine. I haven't separated it out from the
main ncurses SPEC through and have only done this locally as I have
no knowledge of the hoops to create a separate package and that seems
like the wrong way to do this in general. I have made this available
to others who will be in the same boat.
But the purpose of my thread here is a more general Fedora policy
question as it affects users of Fedora as to what applications the OS
is likely to support. If the policy is to just support Fedora built
binaries within the particular version of Fedora and to ignore
external and commercial binaries built with say Redhat7 and provide
no degree of compatibility so be it, but it would be useful for
everyone to know where the land lies and be on the same page. The
maintainer of the ncurses package wasn't sure of the policy on this.
I wonder what is this claim based upon? Could you provide a link? And
I wonder if there was such policy, would the maintainer changed their
mind? I am asking because I don't think that any policy can be
enforced unless there is somebody to pickup the work. So in this case,
it should be enough to convince the maintainer to revert the changes,
shouldn't be?
Vít
Sorry, what claim ?
I have no issue with the maintainer in this particular instance, as
people have said if a maintainer doesn't want to support something that
is fine. And obviously a Policy may not be enforced, but at least it
would be a guideline. I understand the maintainer asked a question on
when to depreciate on this list, but had no replies. He took it that if
the compat libs were not in use by any Fedora packages for the release
in question it should/could be depreciated which is one approach.
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
