https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060920 Scott K Logan <logans@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Scott K Logan <logans@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- This sounds fine; I'll add him to this thread. However, I don't believe that upgrading the current package is the correct course of action. The OpenNI documentation states that the new iteration is completely different from the old API and is not reverse compatible in any way. The entire structure is different (see [1]). Also, the two different versions are both being maintained (see [2]). The libraries are named such that they can coexist on the system. A program can update its code to work with OpenNI2, but can't work with both. I can't see everyone simultaneously switching to OpenNI2, so a cold upgrade (even one that happens on a new release of Fedora) would be rather harsh. On a different note, I just found a file conflict with the NiViewer between the two versions that I will need to resolve. Expect an update to the spec file and SRPMs. Thanks! --scott [1] http://www.openni.org/openni-migration-guide/ [2] https://github.com/OpenNI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review