[Bug 600243] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - MMX/SSE accelerated libjpeg

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600243

--- Comment #34 from Chen Lei <supercyper1 at gmail.com> 2010-06-15 23:36:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> As soname deps are automatically handled by rpm, I bet most of the packages
> which currently have manual libjpeg Requires do that because they really need
> one of the tools. That's also why it's libjpeg-turbo-tools that is Obsoleting
> libjpeg package, as opposed to libjpeg-turbo having the Obsoletes.
> 
> Since the libjpeg-turbo-tools package already contains Obsoletes: libjpeg, it'd
> make sense to add the Provides: libjpeg also to the same libjpeg-turbo-tools
> package.
> 
> Right now -tools subpackage has:
> Obsoletes: libjpeg < 6b-47
> 
> To provide a clean upgrade path it should be:
> Provides: libjpeg = 6b-47
> Obsoletes: libjpeg < 6b-47
> 
> 
> (In reply to comment #32)
> > Also provides libjpeg in libjpeg-turbo will violate packaging guideline.    
> 
> Huh, how so? In fact, packaging guidelines [1] suggest to use the following
> scheme to replace an existing package:
> Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
> Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR
> 
> [1]
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages    

I already explained this to Adam.
See comments 6 and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_—_renaming_or_splitting_packages

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.