https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982306 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jakub Ruzicka from comment #3) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > > > > It would probably be better to update libyang to v2 and then build a > > libyang1 compat package that doesn't ship the tools. > > Probably better how/why? > > This naming convention was chosen after a discussion with both upstream and > the Debian package maintainer as a least problematic transition with same > package names across distros given the incompatibility between v1 and v2 > (which IMHO warrants separate packages). > > Considering your suggestion, where would the libyang1 compat package live? > In libyang2 distgit/branch? In a separate libyang1 distgit/branch? > It would live in a separate libyang1 Dist-Git repository. You can see how we did it for OpenSSL here with openssl1.1: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssl1.1 Compatibility packages are exempted from requiring review: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process For the legacy libyang1 package, we do not need to ship the libyang-tools package, since the tools provided there would be the same as what libyang (upgraded to v2) would include. > > > > Also, this libyang2 package spec massively fails to comply with our > > guidelines. > > It's an upstream compromise that works on all distros, I don't expect it to > go into Fedora as is. > > However, I've hoped for specific pointers on howto resolve the most pressing > issues such a v1 vs v2 naming, Conflicts (which Fedora guidelines advise > against) or other fundamental issues. I can fix the upstream source URL, > changelog and other nits fedora-review tool points out at any time, but it's > pointless without addressing the core issues mentioned before. > > If you care to elaborate on the most important steps required to make the > .spec comply with Fedora guidelines, I'm happy to carry those changes out. > Upstream is cooperative as well. > > The .spec is ~80 lines and there exists a finite sequence of edits that lead > to a Fedora-compliant .spec. Actually, if you take a look at the existing libyang spec file, it's already in pretty decent shape: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libyang/blob/rawhide/f/libyang.spec -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
