On 06/12/2009 02:15 AM, Robert Scheck wrote: > Good morning everybody, > > yesterday night, I noticed that there's an overlap of the libmapi.so > library in the future. There are two packages which would provide a same > named but different library called "libmapi.so". > > One is provided by the openchange package, the other will be provided by > the zarafa package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498194). > > Which one will win, which one has to be renamed? The openchange library > already is in Fedora, but is very much newer from the history compared with > the zarafa one. The openchange libmapi.so exists since ~ April 2007, the > zarafa libmapi.so exists since about 5 years now. When looking to the point > of producitivity, I would say that zarafa libmapi.so would win as well, as > it is in productive use at their customers since they're existing as well. > > Or should maybe both libraries get renamed to mark which upstream they're > from? This is, what I personally would prefer, especially as we're now very > early in the circle and could do such a library renaming without hurting > too much and too many things. > > I think I agree with both libraries getting renamed. mapi seems like it would be a common name. we've had an approved Guideline change for a while that partially addresses this; I've updated the Conflicts Guideline with that information now: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
