On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:55:20PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:47:43 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:10:24PM +0200, Mario Blättermann wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm currently reviewing the following package: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 > > > > > > The package python-datanommer-models seems to be a splitout from > > > datanommer, that's why we have currently: > > > > > > Conflicts: datanommer < 0.2.0 > > > > > > In my mind, it should be "Obsoletes" instead of "Conflicts" because it > > > is the successor of datanommer. But we have a somewhat more difficult > > > scenario here. The packager writes: > > > > > > "Regarding the Conflicts/Obsoletes/Provides, I'd like to still maintain > > > the datanommer package itself as a kind of meta-package that installs > > > the splitoffs but also includes "fedmsg-hub" which will turn on a new > > > service. Once these packages are approved, I would bump the datanommer > > > meta package from 0.1.8 to 0.2.0 to match them." > > > > > So in that visualization of the problem, the versioned Conflicts makes more > > sense than Obsoletes. > > Questionable. Conflicts are evil, even if they are only temporary. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts > I'm reading that this is okay usage into this section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Optional_Functionality The package can work with the datanommer package if that package is >= 0.2.0 It will conflict if the datanommer package is less than 0.2.0. > There's also the "Package Renaming Process". > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required > > Current "datanommer" package in koji includes a couple of Python modules, > two of them are included also in the new python-datanommer-models package: > "datanommer" and "datanommer.models". Hence this is a rename. > Moving the modules to a different package without adding Obs/Prov isn't > nice. > > "repoquery --whatrequires datanommer" returns nothing. Koji tells that > this package is so brand-new, it's updates-testing *only*. With several > releases since 2012-09-26 not having reached "stable" at all. > It's questionable to me whether this is a rename or not. The feedback that Mario quotes about the packager's intention says that the packager is not thinking of this as a rename. It seems that currently, the datanommer application ships with several python modules. Some of those ae being moved to their own package. But the datanommer package is going to continue to exist. Installing the updated datanommer =will pull in the new python-datanommer-models package via Requires. So in practical terms, people who have the datanommer paackage installed will upgrade to the new datanommer and still have the python modules because of the Requires: python-datanommer-models in the updated datanommer package. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp_JoQUiHBmM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
