Request to allow an incompatible upgrade
Toshio Kuratomi
a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 22:52:28 UTC 2012
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:53:32PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 15 August 2012 15:31, BJ Dierkes <derks at bjdierkes.com> wrote:
> > I could do that, but it would mean one of two things right?
> >
> > a) python-cement2 Conflicts with python-cement
>
> We usually go for this unless the module can be dual installed.
>
All python modules can be dual installed. However, it may require changes
to other packages to make use of. We utilize setuptools to install the
package as a multiple version (setuptools installs it into an alternate
path) and then packages that need the non-default version have to add it to
their path somehow. There is a setuptools provided way to do that too:
__requires__ = ['cement >= 2.0']
import pkg_resources
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Multiple_Versions
In EPEL we're carrying a few of these packages for web frameworks since the
versions that shipped with RHEL are old or different web frameworks require
different versions.
Also note -- Conflicts aren't allowed in fedora packages except under some
very specific circumsances. I don't think EPEL has a divergence here.
Also note -- personally I wouldn't mind this or several other packages being
free to upgrade. But then agian, I'm not personally a consumer of an old
version of them :-)
-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20120815/e55875fa/attachment.sig>
More information about the epel-devel-list
mailing list