On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 05/02/2013 07:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > On 05/02/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >> On 02/05/13 08:38, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> >>> 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi >> >>> update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces >> > >> > >> > FYI, this is not technically permissible. The packaging guidelines >> > require clean upgrade paths. If you need to install multiple pieces >> > of a Bodhi update for things to work, they need to be arranged >> > with Requires/Obsoletes/Conflicts appropriately so that they are >> > pulled in automatically. Anything else is a bug in the packaging. >> > > I'm not sure about this... I seem to recall other cases where the FPC ruled > that end users *could* install pieces of an update and get broken systems. > The right thing to do was to update all of the pieces instead. > > If you could point to some guidelines that imply the opposite it might be > that there's some finer grained distinction when it's appropriate and when > it's not. Or alternately, someone needs to reopen some tickets saying that > the precedent actually is for us to take care of these. > > Here's the latest example I could find: > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/241 > > and Timestamp 17:47:49 > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-02-06/fpc.2013-02-06-17.02.log.html > > This is slightly different as it is crossing a release boundary (f17+ > updates to f18) but it's similar in nature. That's where I remember a policy like this from! I helped out with the package reviews for the (very cool) 3D Printing feature, including the review this issue popped up in. >> >> Another option is to say that a rename of a node module is not >> >> what the rename guidelines call a "compatible enough replacement" >> >> which would mean the new package would not provide the old name, >> >> but would still obsolete it. >> > >> > >> > That's not necessarily true. If it's a one-to-one replacement >> > (except for the name), then I'd suggest that option 1 is the best >> > plan for the short term, but that we should open Bugzilla tickets >> > against all known packages depending on the old name to update in >> > their next releases. >> > >> > If just adding a symlink to make it a full replacement is enough to >> > do the job, that's definitely the least impact. No need to force >> > an update until the other package is ready for it. >> > > One note here: From the sounds of the original post, we're talking about a > very few (just one?) package here and that package has already been updated. > If that's true, adding a versioned Requires/Conflict pair or telling people > that all the pieces have to be updated seems like the right thing. Yes, just nodejs-request, although breaking that breaks many other things. -T.C. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
