[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Conflicting Packages Policy (was: python26 note)



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

On 10/05/2010 08:46 PM, BJ Dierkes wrote:
> NOTE: This is likely a topic to revisit/finalize in the next EPEL SIG Meeting (every Monday at 19:30 UTC).
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I would like to start an official discussion regarding the current policy on conflicting packages.  Currently, the EPEL documentation [1] is a bit sparse and does not reflect certain situations (such as the discussion on mod_python26/mod_wsgi26).  Per the FPG [1], Fedora packagers should avoid an explicit 'Conflicts: xxxxx' as much as possible.  However, due to some new developments in EPEL 5 (namely python26), some situations may require explicitly conflicting packages.  
> 
> As an example, during my package review for mod_python26 [3] the subject was brought up due to my use of 'Conflicts: mod_python' in the spec for mod_python26.  The packages conflict because mod_python and mod_python26 both provide the 'python_module', and the same Apache directives when enabled.  Therefore, the two can not be loaded at the same time.  The issue would be the same for mod_wsgi and mod_wsgi26 (built against/for python26).  In this specific situation, the possible solutions to work around this are:
> 
>  * Change policy to account for situations like those related to python26 and allow explicit 'Conflicts: xxxxx'
>  * Silently disable mod_python26 if python_module is already loaded via IfModule [4]
> 
> 
> Though the second option (IfModule) is a cleaner approach, it hides the fact that mod_python26 just won't load if mod_python is installed/enabled and assumes the user will know to look at /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_python26.conf for comments on why that might be.  On the other hand, conflicting with mod_python doesn't inform the user why it conflicts... it just conflicts.  In my opinion it would be slightly more obvious why mod_python26 would Conflict: mod_python, but I don't know what is collectively in the best interest of EPEL maintainers.
> 
> In Fedora, an explicit 'Conflicts: xxxxx' is unwanted behavior and would be troubling/confusing for a lot of users.  However, being that EPEL is a different audience and different use case... I would like to open discussion regarding current policy and determine, officially, how these situations should be handled.
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy_for_Conflicting_Packages
> [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Conflicts
> [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638362
> [4] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/core.html#ifmodule
> 

Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason that mod_python26 could not
be patched to provide 'python26_module' instead of 'python_module' for
apache?

Presumably, this name would be defined in the source for mod_python
somewhere.

- -- 
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkysWyYACgkQeiVVYja6o6Oy1gCggE4c3nDPDlQykgEy6WaKLIZ0
JQUAn10CqNjh7MucoTao+Nn034vYqDis
=1w/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]