On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 13:27 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet <at> gmail.com> writes: > > So then don't make it a compat-* package. > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-February/msg01009.html > > This distinction you and Michael Schwendt are making between compat packages > with or without the "compat-" prefix doesn't appear to be shared by all > maintainers. I see the following packages in Rawhide matching compat-*-devel: > compat-guichan05-devel-0.5.0-8.fc9.i386.rpm > compat-guile-16-devel-1.6.7-7.fc8.i386.rpm > compat-libosip2-devel-2.2.2-15.fc8.i386.rpm > compat-wxGTK26-devel-2.6.4-2.i386.rpm An oversight that will hopefully be corrected. > By the way, the _only_ case where a compat package without a -devel package > makes sense is for an ABI-only change where the new package is 100% > API-compatible (and thus software can easily be rebuilt). Otherwise you're > penalizing software which is built from source (and thus needs the -devel > package) over software shipped as a binary (which can just use the compat > library), which disadvantages Free Software, so it's counterproductive. You're not wrong, but the source really should be updated to the new API. Sometimes telling upstream "fix your sh*t" isn't the wrong thing to do. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
