On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 21:12 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 20:37 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > > Le Dim 14 mai 2006 07:13, Michael A. Peters a écrit : > > > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 00:25 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > >> Maybe it's time to think about packaging so into their separate > > >> libfoo<major> subpackages like Debian/Mandrake/ATrpms are doing? This > > >> always ensures forward and backward compatibility at the cost of dead > > >> libfoo<major> packages lying around. > > > I semi agree. > > And I semi disagree. > > How about a policy like this: > > --- > Package updates in Fedora Extras to new upstream version are allowed for > stable Core versions as long as the soname of the provided libs doesn't > change. > > Updates with soname changes are okay if the packager takes care of one > of the following steps: > > a) you create and provide a compat-package with the old lib in it. The > compat-package of course needs to be parallel-installable with the new > version. Also, the new "compat" package needs to be reviewed as if it were a new package. We've already set precedent for this with wxGTK. Otherwise, I'm in total agreement here. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
