On 03/19/2009 08:44 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Is there any policy at all on compat packages? I can't find anything > except this oblique reference to "openssl" vs "openssl096b": > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name > > There are a number of compat-* packages in Fedora. > > We would like to add one for celt (an audio codec), since the > bitstream changes incompatibly in each release, and interoperability > depends on an application always using the same specific version. > > (This is in relation to this bug: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485245 > and the celt package in both Rawhide and RHEL 5) There is no formalized policy at this time. The last attempt by FESCo was tabled, but is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple/DraftCompatPackages My opinion is that compat- packages are acceptable in cases where the primary (non-compat) maintainer agrees that there is value in the compat packages, and that it does not encourage upstreams to remain on old APIs unnecessarily. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
