Re: question about Obsoletes/Provides
Thanks for your advice.
I updated the spec file accordingly and published a new version in the
review request.
On 03/09/2018 12:15 AM, Fernando Nasser wrote:
On 2018-03-08 5:58 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:23:45AM +0100, Jos de Kloe wrote:
>> I have a question about an open review request on the eccodes package,
>> see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508950
>>
>> Eccodes will replace grib_api for which downstream will stop support at
>> the end of this year.
>> Therefore the first draft spec file had Obsoletes/Provides entries to
>> make clear that eccodes will replace it.
>>
>> Then I received a comment that this was maybe not correct, since the
>> replacement package may not be compatible enough so I disabled these
>> keywords.
>>
>> Main differences are:
>> * grib_api provides a fortran77 library, which is absent in eccodes
>> * library and pkg-config files changed name
>>
>> on the other hand, they both provide a fully compatible api version of
>> the c and fortran90 library.
>>
>> On top of that, they both provide a collection of tools in /usr/bin with
>> identical names which gives a conflict in ownership if both packages
>> would be present at the same time.
>>
>> looking at
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_...
>>
>> is this a case where only an Obsoletes should be used?
> Yes, IMHO this is a case where just using 'Obsoletes' on its own to get
> the upgrade installed is reasonable. Any downstream RPM that depends on
> the original package may well need adapting due to changed library name,
> so claiming 'Provides' is not appropriate.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
Just adding a reminder: make sure your Obsoletes is versioned.
Regards,
Fernando
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org