Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Petr Pisar]

On 2015-09-11, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac at redhat.com> wrote:
> My complain here is about packaging libraries.
> And just because a library has been upgraded from version .so.2 to version 
> .so.4  and you can't have both (as the new one replaces old one by Fedora 
> policy) 

You can.

AFAIK policy does not forbid it. The think that hinders you from having
both of them are repository tools (etc.) that does not support multiple
versions of the same package name.

You can work around it by packaging the old version under a new package
name. AFAIK there was a (passed) proposal for fast reviews in case of
renaming packages. That applies exactly for this case.

> - you cannot normally use rpmfusion.

Or rpmfusion is too slow to follow up Rawhide. This is a casual issue of
dependend products that do not guarantee compatibility.

This of course is not issue for already releaed Fedoras. Policy forbids
to break ABI inside one release. (Different issue are developers who
push breaking updates into prelease, like F23 is now. IMHO Fesco should
reconsider release plans and consider declaring ABI freeze on branching.)

> The best part is - the library itself is mostly useless - but because of 
> packaging policy - if you want to use rpmfusion - you have to basically build
> lib-compat-like (Fedora way) libraries yourself - that's what I call silly....
>
Maybe rpmfusion people could help with maintaining the lib-compat-like
packages in Fedora.

-- Petr