Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
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.
My opinion also. On that topic, should we do something about compat
packages not explicitly named as such. For example, we ship
gtksourceview and gtksourceview2. Shouldn't they be called
'compat-gtksourceview' and 'gtksourceview' respectively ? Where do we
draw the line ?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
