rawhide report: 20080211 changes

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 13:27 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > So then don't make it a compat-* package.
> > 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-February/msg01009.html
> 
> This distinction you and Michael Schwendt are making between compat packages 
> with or without the "compat-" prefix doesn't appear to be shared by all 
> maintainers. I see the following packages in Rawhide matching compat-*-devel:
> compat-guichan05-devel-0.5.0-8.fc9.i386.rpm
> compat-guile-16-devel-1.6.7-7.fc8.i386.rpm
> compat-libosip2-devel-2.2.2-15.fc8.i386.rpm
> compat-wxGTK26-devel-2.6.4-2.i386.rpm

An oversight that will hopefully be corrected.

> By the way, the _only_ case where a compat package without a -devel package 
> makes sense is for an ABI-only change where the new package is 100% 
> API-compatible (and thus software can easily be rebuilt). Otherwise you're 
> penalizing software which is built from source (and thus needs the -devel 
> package) over software shipped as a binary (which can just use the compat 
> library), which disadvantages Free Software, so it's counterproductive.

You're not wrong, but the source really should be updated to the new
API. Sometimes telling upstream "fix your sh*t" isn't the wrong thing to
do.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080215/d74bf6f6/attachment.sig>