On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:56 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mercredi 20 février 2008 à 10:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > > > 2. It's technically counterproductive. > > compat packages are band aids to help out in cases where "upgrading" > > isn't easily applicable. Banning compat-*-devel packages voids this > > aspect. > > I've seem people proposing the creation of foo123 packages just to get > around the "no devel for compat packages" rule proposed there. Right, it's the escape to get around a silly proposal. > Don't > tell me this is progress — those foo123 packages are going to stick a > lot longer that compat packages would ever had. They tend to stick longer, because they tend to be designed for parallel installation, often because of technical needs. compat-<package> (without devel) tend to be introduced as temporary, legacy band-aid run-time packages. > So the "no devel" rule is nothing but hiding problems under the carpet. No. It's closing the eyes in front of actual problems. > It does not make people less inclined to build against old versions, you > just have bandaids that do not look like bandaids anymore. You seem to be missing that it's almost always not a matter of will, but a matter of technical requirement to ship compat*/foo123 packages, to keep things going at all. Or more abstract: Development is not a linear process, it has branches, curves and edges. Banning *devel packages from "compat" packages is trying to linearize development with a sledgehammer. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
