Fedora 34 Change: Rename libusb packages and deprecated old API (Self-Contained Change)

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_depreca...

== Summary ==

Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`. Do
'''not''' provide an automated update path for the old `libusb`
build
dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use
`libusb1`.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:benzea|Benjamin Berg]]
* Email: bberg(a)redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
Currently we have two related packages:
* libusb: Containing a compatibility layer of the 0.1 API for libusb 1.0
* libusbx: Containing the libusb 1.0 API, where the name "libusbx"
derives from a fork that existed for a while

To make it clear that "libusb" should not be used anymore and as
"libusbx" does not exist anymore, it makes sense to rename the
packages as follows:
* libusb-compat
* libusb1

In order to ensure that no package is depending on the old `libusb`
(i.e. `libusb-compat`) without a good reason, the plan is to
'''not'''
add the corresponding `Provides:` line for the `libusb-compat-devel`
rename.


== Benefit to Fedora ==

* We adhere more closely to the upstream naming scheme for libusb.
* We begin sunsetting `libusb-compat` (i.e. current `libusb`).


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Create new `libusb-compat` and `libusb1` packages based on the current ones.

* Other developers:
Review any package that uses `BuildRequires: libusb-devel`. Many of
them will be able to switch to `libusb1-devel` but some may still
require the compatibility layer, i.e. `libusb-compat-devel`.

* Release engineering: N/A
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives: N/A


== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
No impact is expected.

== How To Test ==
No further testing is needed.

== User Experience ==
[not provided]

== Dependencies ==
[not provided]

== Contingency Plan ==

Add `Provides: libusb-devel` to `libusb-compat-devel` if too many
packages are not updated.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a
System Wide Change)
* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change)

== Documentation ==
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_depreca...
>  
>  == Summary ==
>  
>  Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`. Do
>  '''not''' provide an automated update path for the old `libusb`
> build
>  dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use
>  `libusb1`. 
Please, don't name packages name-compat. See the guidelines on the topic: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Benjamin Berg]

On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_depreca...
>  > 
>  > == Summary ==
>  > 
>  > Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`. Do
>  > '''not''' provide an automated update path for the old
> `libusb`
>  > build
>  > dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use
>  > `libusb1`.
>  
>  Please, don't name packages name-compat. See the guidelines on the
>  topic: 
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple 
The upstream name of the library is "libusb-compat-0.1". So the
"compat" part would not be distribution specific in this case.

See https://github.com/libusb/libusb-compat-0.1

Benjamin

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/24/20 9:52 PM, Benjamin Berg wrote:
>  On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_depreca...
> >>
> >> == Summary ==
> >>
> >> Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`. Do
> >> '''not''' provide an automated update path for the old
> `libusb`
> >> build
> >> dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use
> >> `libusb1`.
> >
> > Please, don't name packages name-compat. See the guidelines on the
> > topic:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
>  
>  The upstream name of the library is "libusb-compat-0.1". So the
>  "compat" part would not be distribution specific in this case.
>  
>  See https://github.com/libusb/libusb-compat-0.1 
In that case, I guess it is fine, thou a bit confusing. Why not call it 
libusb-compat-0.1?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Benjamin Berg]

On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:54 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 11/24/20 9:52 PM, Benjamin Berg wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  > > On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > > >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_depreca...
>  > > > 
>  > > > == Summary ==
>  > > > 
>  > > > Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`.
>  > > > Do
>  > > > '''not''' provide an automated update path for the
> old `libusb`
>  > > > build
>  > > > dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use
>  > > > `libusb1`.
>  > > 
>  > > Please, don't name packages name-compat. See the guidelines on
>  > > the
>  > > topic:
>  > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
>  > 
>  > The upstream name of the library is "libusb-compat-0.1". So the
>  > "compat" part would not be distribution specific in this case.
>  > 
>  > See https://github.com/libusb/libusb-compat-0.1
>  
>  In that case, I guess it is fine, thou a bit confusing. Why not call it 
>  libusb-compat-0.1? 
Really, no specific reason. :)

I find it a bit weird with the version as part of the package, but it
does indeed seem correct in this case.

Benjamin

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:11 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` 
It was my recollection that I thought libXXXX-compat package
naming was deprecated in favor of libXXXX1 package
naming (or libXXXX_1 if the last X was a number)
for a .1 soname example.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  * We begin sunsetting `libusb-compat` (i.e. current `libusb`).
Consider deprecating it as part of the change:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-pac...

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Benjamin Berg]

On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:30 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > * We begin sunsetting `libusb-compat` (i.e. current `libusb`).
>  
>  Consider deprecating it as part of the change:
>  
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-pac... 
True, I was not aware of that possibility. Sounds like a good idea,
I'll update the change request to include this.

Benjamin