On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 07:44:04PM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Patrice Dumas <pertusus <at> free.fr> writes: > > I don't want to do devel compat package, I don't think it is needed, > > and this compat package should be removed in F12 or so. > > That makes no sense at all. Either the packages build against the new library, > then they should simply be rebuilt, or they don't, in which case the -devel > package for the compatibility library MUST be provided or the dependent > packages don't rebuild anymore. We're trying hard to get FTBFS bugs fixed, The objective is not to have to rebuild gdal immediately. > intentionally causing new ones is a very bad idea. What if one of the dependent > packages has a security issue? This are not conventional FTBFS created here, but a very controlled one. I maintain all the libdap dependent packages, except gdal, but I watch gdal. > IMHO, compatibility libraries without a -devel package should be banned > entirely. If the compatibility package is needed, so is the > corresponding -devel package, unless the changes are strictly ABI-only with > 100% source compatibility (usually they aren't)! And in that rare event, a mass > rebuild is a better solution than a compatibility package. It may be convenient not to have to rebuild a software everytime upstream introduces ABI change, for some softwares (like numerical models), not tracked in rpm. so I think that doing compatibility libraries or not, with or without devel subpackage should be left to the maintainer. In the case of libdap, ABI is very unstable, but API doesn't change much (except in that case) so I don't think doing compat packages in the general case is interesting. I will also avoid to do it in the present case, since Orion is against (and he is the potential reviewer ;-) and I agree that it was not really needed. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
