Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:59 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> please reread the little howto I wrote, then you'll that the package >> is effectivly unchanged, just renamed and stripped of its -develo >> subpackage. I just realized that if its a mixed lib and binary package >> it should actually be stripped of everything except the libs and %doc. >> So maybe the howto needs some rewording, but as said the idea is that >> this isn't a _new_ package is just a rename of an exisiting one! > > ... in that case, it should be quick and easy for the review to > happen :-) > > Jeremy > Its unnescesarry pain for the maintainer and an unnescesarry burden on the Review process which is already overloaded as is. Also see what Kevin Kofler wrote: > Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@...> writes: >> 1) When a package update would cause an soname change then a compat >> package with the old libraries must be provided for all release repos, >> that is for all repos except devel. > > IMHO this is ridiculous. Even Core doesn't follow such a strict policy. This is > going to hinder critical security upgrades for packages such as SeaMonkey, and > also leave rapidly-changing libraries (which are the ones needing version > upgrades the most!) stale at old versions (and you can quickly end up with > dozens of compat packages for the same library if it is _really_ rapidly > changing). I think the current policy of simply getting packages rebuilt if a > soname changes (which is also what is done when Core upgrades a soname) works > well. > So he thinks that even mandating a compat package is a bad idea, I'm tryign to find some middle ground here. Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
