HEADS-UP: Transition to guile-2.0.x and a new compat-guile1.8 package

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 23:25:42 UTC 2012

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:58:28PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 12:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > """
> > Compat Package Conflicts
> > It is acceptable to use Conflicts: in some cases involving compat packages.
> > These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look
> > in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and
> > foo-compat-devel packages need to Conflict:. Whenever possible, this should
> > be avoided.
> > """
> > 
> > at sonme point we should probably clarify that section.... I can't remember
> > now where we wanted the line to be drawn.  The fact that htis has been done
> > in SUSE and that porting is proceeding here seems to indicate that we
> > wouldn't want a Conflicts in this case.
> That's funny, I was going to say the opposite...I think we should
> clarify it to say that in the cases where it makes sense to have a
> libfoo-compat package, there's no need to bend over backwards to try and
> make libfoo-devel and libfoo-compat-devel be parallel installable,
> because there's just no important use case for it. There is no reason
> you'd need to compile one code base against two different versions of
> the same library, so there's no case where you would need to have both
> -devel packages installed simultaneously.
> I think we should be strict about trying not to package multiple majors
> of the same library wherever possible, but where it's pretty much
> unavoidable, I think it's perfectly fine for the -devel packages to
> conflict. In fact I think it's better to leave them conflicting than to
> hack them up with patches to make them not conflict; that's always going
> to be a hack job, nothing clean. The library thinks it's called libfoo,
> not libfoo2 or libfoo-compat. I think the guidelines should reflect
> this...they should explicitly say that a -devel package conflict is fine
> and indeed recommended in the specific case of packaging multiple majors
> of a single library.
Feel free to submit a draft -- the conflicts guidelines haen't been worked
on in several years so there's many "new" people  on the FPC.  I believe
that mschwendt was one of the people who had a lot of influence on the
current guideline if you'd like to get some feedback on your draft.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20121023/bf1448c0/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list