On 05/05/14 22:14, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:54:10PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> My resiprocate package produces multiple binary packages >> >> As of v1.9.x, one of the binary packages doesn't exist any more. It is >> called resiprocate-b2bua >> >> Is it OK for me to release v1.9 (without the obsolete package) to F20? >> > Strictly speaking I'd say no. But you can make the case to FESCo [Fedora > Engineering Steering Committee] (note -- this list is where the FPC [Fedora > Packaging Committee] hangs out. FESCo should be reading devel list and if > you're asking them a question formally, you should use their trac instance: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/) that > > Removing the package without a replacement breaks implicit "API" and so it > contravenes the update policy. Do make the case to fesco, though. If the > package isn't used much then there is a reasonable likelihood that fesco > would make an exception for it. > > (Note that getting rid of the subpackage in F21+ is okay, though -- and feel > free to use the Obsoletes mentioned later to remove the package on systems > where the user has upgraded.) > >> Is there anything I can do to have resiprocate-b2bua eliminated from F20 >> as part of this update? >> > You'd probably want to add an Obsolete of the subpackage in the main > package: > > Obsoletes: resiprocate-b2bua > > That will get rid of the package on user's systems when the main package is > updated. Be careful, though, ince you have no replacement, this will > remove it from systems where users may actually be using it. If the user > reinstalls the old subpackage manually the main package with the Obsoletes > will re-remove the old subpackage again. If the old version of > resiprocate-b2bua will not work with the new main package (say because > there's a shared library in the main package that has updated SONAME) then > you probably want this behaviour anyway. If the two versions could work > together, then the Obsoletes (in F20) is something you could discuss with > FESCo as a way to mitigate the change for current users. Thanks for this feedback The main package does provide a shared library used by the subpackage The SONAME does include the major.minor version numbers on all the platforms (Fedora, Debian, ...): $ objdump -p /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresip-1.9.so | grep SONAME SONAME libresip-1.9.so This is mainly because SIP is constantly evolving and the API can change from time to time. In theory, this means the old and new versions could be installed concurrently - does rpm support that though? It is quite possible that nobody uses this subpackage whereas there is significant demand for the WebRTC features in the new version. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
