Package rename breakage - wat do?

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/02/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 02/05/13 08:38, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> 
>> So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older
>> versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all
>> 
>> 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older
>> versions of nodejs-request that it will break
>> 
>> 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi update
>> and it breaks you get to keep both pieces
> 

FYI, this is not technically permissible. The packaging guidelines
require clean upgrade paths. If you need to install multiple pieces of
a Bodhi update for things to work, they need to be arranged with
Requires/Obsoletes/Conflicts appropriately so that they are pulled in
automatically. Anything else is a bug in the packaging.

> Another option is to say that a rename of a node module is not what
> the rename guidelines call a "compatible enough replacement" which
> would mean the new package would not provide the old name, but
> would still obsolete it.
> 

That's not necessarily true. If it's a one-to-one replacement (except
for the name), then I'd suggest that option 1 is the best plan for the
short term, but that we should open Bugzilla tickets against all known
packages depending on the old name to update in their next releases.

If just adding a symlink to make it a full replacement is enough to do
the job, that's definitely the least impact. No need to force an
update until the other package is ready for it.


> Any packages that depended on the old name would then need to be
> rebuilt to depend on the new name and yum would not allow one to be
> updated without the other.
> 
> Tom
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlGCUPoACgkQeiVVYja6o6NdmQCfX5PfJZx6NGY7+9SqWMitdJ9Q
H9cAoJ9RubXKNyW3hXQE3uOxVnxAmIn2
=LgRz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----