On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:07:35PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > ''' > > When you implement the new Provides, please leave the old ones so that > > third party packages that have grown to depend on them can continue to > > function. The Requires for all Fedora packages should be changed to use > > the new provides by F-9, however. > > ''' > > I think using the same backwards compatibility recommendations as in naming > guidelines' renaming/replacing existing packages section would work fine. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d I think that it is a bit different here. And while we can say don't remove it before F-9, I think that the virtual provides can be left in by packagers if the want to. In my opinion virtual provides should be more backward compatible than package names. So maybe something along: ''' When you implement the new Provides, please leave the old ones so that third party packages that have grown to depend on them can continue to function, at least for F-9. After F-9 keeping or removing the provides is left to the packager. The Requires for all Fedora packages should be changed to use the new provides by F-9, however. ''' -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
