https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipRenaming
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary == Renaming the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and renaming the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" to align with the upstream naming.
== Owner == * Name: [[User:ljavorsk| Lukas Javorsky]] * Email: ljavorsk@redhat.com
== Detailed Description == Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no confusion about which package is the right one. Upstream has also requested to rename the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" which is the right naming for the package.
The "minizip" and "minizip-compat" provides different shared libraries which prevent us from conflicting sonames.
The plan behind this change can be put into x steps which will be completed separately and in the given order:
''NOTE: All of the Provides and Obsoletes will be added to the *-devel subpackages as well.''
1) Create a new package "minizip-ng" which will `Provides: minizip = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: (minizip < 3.0.2-7 and minizip > 3.0.0-1)`
''NOTE: The versions I choose here are the safe versions that create a space for possible "minizip-compat" rebases''
2) Rebuild all of the packages that BuildRequire/Require "minizip" package to BuildRequire/Require new "minizip-ng" package
3) Retire the "minizip" package following the [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_... Package Retirement Process]
4) Wait for the Fedora 40 when it's ensured that every user has updated at least to the Fedora 38. Remove the `Provides` and `Obsoletes` from the "minizip-ng" package
5) Rename the "minizip-compat" to the "minizip" package and add `Provides: minizip-compat = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: minizip-compat < 1.2.12`
== Feedback == Early feedback from the community is possite, the feedback is located in this [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/... Email thread]
== Benefit to Fedora == Fedora should always respect upstream package naming, so the users are not confused about which package are they installing. This naming change will align the naming with the upstream.
== Scope == * Proposal owners: New package "minizip-ng" will be created, and several changes in "minizip-compat" package which are described in the Detailed Description.
* Other developers: Change the names of their BuildRequires/Requires accordingly.
* Release engineering: No action required * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives:
== Upgrade/compatibility impact == When following the plan in Detailed Description there will be no need for manual action. Everything will be handled by the automated dnf upgrade.
== How To Test ==
== User Experience ==
== Dependencies == List of the packages from Fedora 37
=== minizip === repoquery --whatrequires "*libminizip.so.3*" | pkgname | uniq
R-libSBML
collada-dom
dolphin-emu
dolphin-emu-tool
java-libsbml
keepassxc
libnuml
librasterlite2
libsbml
libspatialite
libxlsxwriter
minizip-devel
perl-LibSBML
python3-libsbml
ruby-SBML
sigil
vxl
xiphos
zfstream
=== minizip-compat === repoquery --whatrequires "*libminizip.so.1*" | pkgname | uniq
chromedriver
chromium
chromium-headless
domoticz
hashcat
libdigidocpp
minizip-compat-devel
springlobby
== Contingency Plan == * Contingency mechanism: Remove the builds created and revert shipped changes. Done by any Fedora packager (preferred by the one who knows about this change) * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze * Blocks release? No ''NOTE: If we don't finish this change to the deadline, it is possible to just complete this change with the next release.''
== Documentation == [https://github.com/zlib-ng/minizip-ng/issues/358 Upstream issue] [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037245 Bugzilla tracker]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Detailed Description == Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no confusion about which package is the right one. Upstream has also requested to rename the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" which is the right naming for the package.
The "minizip" and "minizip-compat" provides different shared libraries which prevent us from conflicting sonames.
The plan behind this change can be put into x steps which will be completed separately and in the given order:
''NOTE: All of the Provides and Obsoletes will be added to the *-devel subpackages as well.''
- Create a new package "minizip-ng" which will `Provides: minizip =
%{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: (minizip < 3.0.2-7 and minizip > 3.0.0-1)`
Hi,
it seems that Obsoletes does not work with boolean dependencies, so the proposed for would not work. Instead, please use the standard form described by the Packaging Guidelines: Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3
(This is assuming that minizip-ng-3.0.3 will be the first version built in koji. Please note that minizip < 3.0.2-7 does NOT cover version minizip-3.0.2-7.fc37 currently in rawhide.)
- Rebuild all of the packages that BuildRequire/Require "minizip"
package to BuildRequire/Require new "minizip-ng" package
- Retire the "minizip" package following the
[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_... Package Retirement Process]
- Wait for the Fedora 40 when it's ensured that every user has
updated at least to the Fedora 38. Remove the `Provides` and `Obsoletes` from the "minizip-ng" package
FWIW, I prefer to keep those for a while. We don't officially support this, but people do upgrades over more than two versions quite often, and it's nice not to break that.
- Rename the "minizip-compat" to the "minizip" package and add
`Provides: minizip-compat = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: minizip-compat < 1.2.12`
As already mentioned in the original discussion thread, this step is risky. We generally try to follow upstream naming on packages, but sometimes it's not possible for various technical reasons. This seems to be one of those cases, because limitiations of Obsoletes mean that we can't obsolete a subset of package versions. Minizip-compat is not intended to be used by anything in the distribution, so it's not a big deal if the package name is "wrong". Thus, I think it's better to skip this last step and tell minizip upstream that the we'll keep the "-compat" name for compatiblity reasons. Maybe add a sentence of explanation to the package name.
Zbyszek
On 22/08/30 05:57PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Detailed Description == Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no confusion about which package is the right one. Upstream has also requested to rename the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" which is the right naming for the package.
The "minizip" and "minizip-compat" provides different shared libraries which prevent us from conflicting sonames.
The plan behind this change can be put into x steps which will be completed separately and in the given order:
''NOTE: All of the Provides and Obsoletes will be added to the *-devel subpackages as well.''
- Create a new package "minizip-ng" which will `Provides: minizip =
%{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: (minizip < 3.0.2-7 and minizip > 3.0.0-1)`
Hi,
it seems that Obsoletes does not work with boolean dependencies, so the proposed for would not work.
Correct. And even if it did work, you'd want to use the "with" operator not "and."
Instead, please use the standard form described by the Packaging Guidelines: Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3
That also won't work. If minizip-ng "Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" and the new minizip package (the current minizip-compat) is 1.2.12-5, it will get Obsoleted by minizip-ng, which is unwanted. I would suggest adding "Epoch: 1" to the new minizip package (current minizip-compat) so it sorts above 3.0.3.
You also shouldn't add "Provides: minizip = %{sameevr}`" to minizip-ng. It will break parallel installability with the new minizip package. Just wait to retire the current minizip (the one that's becoming minizip-ng) until step 2 has been completed.
- Rebuild all of the packages that BuildRequire/Require "minizip"
package to BuildRequire/Require new "minizip-ng" package
Who will be doing this? How will it be done?
- Retire the "minizip" package following the
[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_... Package Retirement Process]
- Wait for the Fedora 40 when it's ensured that every user has
updated at least to the Fedora 38. Remove the `Provides` and `Obsoletes` from the "minizip-ng" package
FWIW, I prefer to keep those for a while. We don't officially support this, but people do upgrades over more than two versions quite often, and it's nice not to break that.
I agree. If you use the approach I outlined above, removing the the Obsoletes won't be necessary in order to rename minizip-compat to minizip.
- Rename the "minizip-compat" to the "minizip" package and add
`Provides: minizip-compat = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: minizip-compat < 1.2.12`
As already mentioned in the original discussion thread, this step is risky. We generally try to follow upstream naming on packages, but sometimes it's not possible for various technical reasons. This seems to be one of those cases, because limitiations of Obsoletes mean that we can't obsolete a subset of package versions.
If you use the Epoch approach, this wouldn't be an issue. Also, what's the idea of waiting to do step 5 until Fedora 40?
Minizip-compat is not intended to be used by anything in the distribution, so it's not a big deal if the package name is "wrong". Thus, I think it's better to skip this last step and tell minizip upstream that the we'll keep the "-compat" name for compatiblity reasons. Maybe add a sentence of explanation to the package name.
I agree. While it's possible to overcome the technical hurdles, this whole Change seems like more headache than its worth. Kevin and I had to deal with a similar situation of Obsoletes and Provides and boolean Requires with the ansible -> ansible-core split, and it's been a huge pain. This change is probably more complicated than that. It's likely that I've confused something in this email given the complexity of a renaming like this
Hi guys,
Thank you so much for the feedback.
Let's wrap it up...
1) We will not rename the current "minizip-compat" to "minizip".
2) The Obsolete in the "minizip-ng" package will look like this: "Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" It shouldn't affect the "minizip-compat" because we won't rename that (look at step 1)
3) The removal of the "Provides" and "Obsolete" in the new "minizip-ng" package will be removed in Fedora 42 (hopefully at that time all users are upgraded)
Note: The rebuild (step 2 in the proposal change) will be done by the maintainers of the dependent packages. I'll report a bug for each component, where I will request it. If some of the maintainers will not be responsive, I will create a PR and as provenpackagers to merge it.
Is this plan correction okay with you? Or is there something else you would like to clear out?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:04 PM Maxwell G via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 22/08/30 05:57PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Detailed Description == Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no confusion about which package is the right one. Upstream has also requested to rename the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" which is the right naming for the package.
The "minizip" and "minizip-compat" provides different shared libraries which prevent us from conflicting sonames.
The plan behind this change can be put into x steps which will be completed separately and in the given order:
''NOTE: All of the Provides and Obsoletes will be added to the *-devel subpackages as well.''
- Create a new package "minizip-ng" which will `Provides: minizip =
%{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: (minizip < 3.0.2-7 and minizip > 3.0.0-1)`
Hi,
it seems that Obsoletes does not work with boolean dependencies, so the proposed for would not work.
Correct. And even if it did work, you'd want to use the "with" operator not "and."
Instead, please use the standard form described by the Packaging Guidelines: Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3
That also won't work. If minizip-ng "Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" and the new minizip package (the current minizip-compat) is 1.2.12-5, it will get Obsoleted by minizip-ng, which is unwanted. I would suggest adding "Epoch: 1" to the new minizip package (current minizip-compat) so it sorts above 3.0.3.
You also shouldn't add "Provides: minizip = %{sameevr}`" to minizip-ng. It will break parallel installability with the new minizip package. Just wait to retire the current minizip (the one that's becoming minizip-ng) until step 2 has been completed.
- Rebuild all of the packages that BuildRequire/Require "minizip"
package to BuildRequire/Require new "minizip-ng" package
Who will be doing this? How will it be done?
- Retire the "minizip" package following the
[
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_...
Package Retirement Process]
- Wait for the Fedora 40 when it's ensured that every user has
updated at least to the Fedora 38. Remove the `Provides` and `Obsoletes` from the "minizip-ng" package
FWIW, I prefer to keep those for a while. We don't officially support this, but people do upgrades over more than two versions quite often, and it's nice not to break that.
I agree. If you use the approach I outlined above, removing the the Obsoletes won't be necessary in order to rename minizip-compat to minizip.
- Rename the "minizip-compat" to the "minizip" package and add
`Provides: minizip-compat = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: minizip-compat < 1.2.12`
As already mentioned in the original discussion thread, this step is risky. We generally try to follow upstream naming on packages, but sometimes it's not possible for various technical reasons. This seems to be one of those cases, because limitiations of Obsoletes mean that we can't obsolete a subset of package versions.
If you use the Epoch approach, this wouldn't be an issue. Also, what's the idea of waiting to do step 5 until Fedora 40?
Minizip-compat is not intended to be used by anything in the distribution, so it's not a big deal if the package name is "wrong". Thus, I think it's better to skip this last step and tell minizip upstream that the we'll keep the "-compat" name for compatiblity reasons. Maybe add a sentence of explanation to the package name.
I agree. While it's possible to overcome the technical hurdles, this whole Change seems like more headache than its worth. Kevin and I had to deal with a similar situation of Obsoletes and Provides and boolean Requires with the ansible -> ansible-core split, and it's been a huge pain. This change is probably more complicated than that. It's likely that I've confused something in this email given the complexity of a renaming like this
-- Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi,
I've just updated the Fedora change [1] accordingly.
Feel free to take another look.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipRenaming
Lukas
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 11:40 AM Lukas Javorsky ljavorsk@redhat.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Thank you so much for the feedback.
Let's wrap it up...
We will not rename the current "minizip-compat" to "minizip".
The Obsolete in the "minizip-ng" package will look like this:
"Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" It shouldn't affect the "minizip-compat" because we won't rename that (look at step 1)
- The removal of the "Provides" and "Obsolete" in the new "minizip-ng"
package will be removed in Fedora 42 (hopefully at that time all users are upgraded)
Note: The rebuild (step 2 in the proposal change) will be done by the maintainers of the dependent packages. I'll report a bug for each component, where I will request it. If some of the maintainers will not be responsive, I will create a PR and as provenpackagers to merge it.
Is this plan correction okay with you? Or is there something else you would like to clear out?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:04 PM Maxwell G via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 22/08/30 05:57PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Detailed Description == Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no confusion about which package is the right one. Upstream has also requested to rename the "minizip-compat" zlib subpackage to "minizip" which is the right naming for the package.
The "minizip" and "minizip-compat" provides different shared libraries which prevent us from conflicting sonames.
The plan behind this change can be put into x steps which will be completed separately and in the given order:
''NOTE: All of the Provides and Obsoletes will be added to the *-devel subpackages as well.''
- Create a new package "minizip-ng" which will `Provides: minizip =
%{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: (minizip < 3.0.2-7 and minizip > 3.0.0-1)`
Hi,
it seems that Obsoletes does not work with boolean dependencies, so the proposed for would not work.
Correct. And even if it did work, you'd want to use the "with" operator not "and."
Instead, please use the standard form described by the Packaging Guidelines: Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3
That also won't work. If minizip-ng "Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" and the new minizip package (the current minizip-compat) is 1.2.12-5, it will get Obsoleted by minizip-ng, which is unwanted. I would suggest adding "Epoch: 1" to the new minizip package (current minizip-compat) so it sorts above 3.0.3.
You also shouldn't add "Provides: minizip = %{sameevr}`" to minizip-ng. It will break parallel installability with the new minizip package. Just wait to retire the current minizip (the one that's becoming minizip-ng) until step 2 has been completed.
- Rebuild all of the packages that BuildRequire/Require "minizip"
package to BuildRequire/Require new "minizip-ng" package
Who will be doing this? How will it be done?
- Retire the "minizip" package following the
[
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_...
Package Retirement Process]
- Wait for the Fedora 40 when it's ensured that every user has
updated at least to the Fedora 38. Remove the `Provides` and `Obsoletes` from the "minizip-ng" package
FWIW, I prefer to keep those for a while. We don't officially support this, but people do upgrades over more than two versions quite often, and it's nice not to break that.
I agree. If you use the approach I outlined above, removing the the Obsoletes won't be necessary in order to rename minizip-compat to minizip.
- Rename the "minizip-compat" to the "minizip" package and add
`Provides: minizip-compat = %{sameevr}` and `Obsoletes: minizip-compat < 1.2.12`
As already mentioned in the original discussion thread, this step is risky. We generally try to follow upstream naming on packages, but sometimes it's not possible for various technical reasons. This seems to be one of those cases, because limitiations of Obsoletes mean that we can't obsolete a subset of package versions.
If you use the Epoch approach, this wouldn't be an issue. Also, what's the idea of waiting to do step 5 until Fedora 40?
Minizip-compat is not intended to be used by anything in the distribution, so it's not a big deal if the package name is "wrong". Thus, I think it's better to skip this last step and tell minizip upstream that the we'll keep the "-compat" name for compatiblity reasons. Maybe add a sentence of explanation to the package name.
I agree. While it's possible to overcome the technical hurdles, this whole Change seems like more headache than its worth. Kevin and I had to deal with a similar situation of Obsoletes and Provides and boolean Requires with the ansible -> ansible-core split, and it's been a huge pain. This change is probably more complicated than that. It's likely that I've confused something in this email given the complexity of a renaming like this
-- Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
-- S pozdravom/ Best regards
Lukáš Javorský
Software Engineer, Core service - Databases
Red Hat https://www.redhat.com
Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C)
612 00 Brno - Královo Pole
ljavorsk@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com
-
Ben Cotton -
Lukas Javorsky -
Maxwell G -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek