11:09 a.m.
Hi all,
if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
background:
I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
to version 1.
Regards,
Till
11:34 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
<thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi all,
if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
background:
I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
to version 1.
I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.
Alternatively, you could do what's done for FUSE, and build both
versions within the same source package and ship each as subpackages.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
1:08 p.m.
On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.
This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me, but I'll add that it
would be good to file a Change Request for this too, so that users and
other developers have a heads up about the change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
2:13 a.m.
On 10/15/2017 08:08 PM, Randy Barlow wrote:
On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
> instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
> be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
> the newer one.
This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me, but I'll add that it
would be good to file a Change Request for this too, so that users and
other developers have a heads up about the change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll submit librealsense1 as a separate
package and file a Change Request.
Just to be clear on the order: I should probably submit the Change
Request first and then submit the package, right?
Kind regards,
Till
4:02 a.m.
On 16 October 2017 at 08:13, Till Hofmann <thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On 10/15/2017 08:08 PM, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
>> instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
>> be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
>> the newer one.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me, but I'll add that it
> would be good to file a Change Request for this too, so that users and
> other developers have a heads up about the change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
>
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll submit librealsense1 as a separate
package and file a Change Request.
Just to be clear on the order: I should probably submit the Change
Request first and then submit the package, right?
Kind regards,
Till
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Doesn't really matter as it'll be going through package review and be
gated
somewhat by that.
In the Change just mention that it is going through review, and the Change
is contingent on that review completing.
You should probably include the backout plan of the epoch bump just in
case, unlikely though it seems, the review bumps into a roadblock or $life
happens and delays you getting everything ready in time for the F28 changes
checkpoint.
It'd also be helpful to have a current 'dnf repoquery --alldeps
--whatrequires' of your library so you can have a list of what might need
rebuilding.
3:52 p.m.
--
Enviado desde mi móvil, disculpe la brevedad
William
El 15/10/2017 10:36 a. m., "Neal Gompa" <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> escribió:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
<thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi all,
if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
background:
I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
to version 1.
I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.
And add Provides: librealsense2 so people can find the same package name in
debianland and fedoraland.
I have seem than the README file of *a lot* of app list requirements and
build requeriments using the names of packages in Debian/Ubuntu and some
times it is not trivial to find the equivalent package name for epel/fedora
3:56 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:52 PM, William Moreno
<williamjmorenor(a)gmail.com> wrote:
El 15/10/2017 10:36 a. m., "Neal Gompa" <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> escribió:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
<thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
> update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
>
> background:
> I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
> new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
> models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
> should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
> librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
> the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
> to version 1.
>
I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.
And add Provides: librealsense2 so people can find the same package name in
debianland and fedoraland.
I have seem than the README file of *a lot* of app list requirements and
build requeriments using the names of packages in Debian/Ubuntu and some
times it is not trivial to find the equivalent package name for epel/fedora
This doesn't actually make sense to do. People should be searching for
librealsense-devel for building against, and Debian ships
librealsense-dev, so it more or less matches.
Runtime libraries are automatically picked up by the dependency
generator, so people should never need to specify it.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
6:19 a.m.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:09:12 +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,
if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
background:
I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
to version 1.
No other distribution package uses this library yet.
# dnf repoquery --whatrequires librealsense --alldeps
librealsense-devel-0:1.12.1-10.fc27.i686
librealsense-devel-0:1.12.1-10.fc27.x86_64
# dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'librealsense2.so.2()(64bit)'
#
Also, the SONAME is 'librealsense2.so.2' already, so the current naming of
the package isn't ideal anyway. Without any idea about who may be using
this package already for private development, I would not worry much
about the minor complications caused by an upgrade in Rawhide.
2384
days inactive
2385
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
James Hogarth -
Michael Schwendt -
Neal Gompa -
Randy Barlow -
Till Hofmann -
William Moreno