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

Re: 5.1 -> 5.2 move

Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:34AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 02:09:29PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen (smooge gmail com) said:
I don't think we have one. We have dealt with the older policy where
things conflicted with 5.1 but not 5.0.

What exactly are the packages having problems?
gtkhtml3 was rebased in 5.2, changing ABI. We can ship (in EPEL)
a gtkhtml38 package, but it will conflict at the file level with
gtkhtml3 from 5.1 and earlier.
Would that be an issue? And I think that it should be in RHEL 5.2, not
in EPEL? But I am not a customer, so...

Ok, I am dumb. Still, why didn't RHEL people add the gtkhtml38 package in RHEL 5.2? This is quite strange, isn't RHEL supposed to keep ABI

They didn't do it because it is hard :(

I am looking at what we can do for CentOS-5.2 right now.

This is VERY bad. As you guys in EPEL have already no doubt figured out, there either needs to be a new libgtkhtml-3.8.so.15 or everything that was compiled against gtkhtml3 will need to be recompiled. Red Hat recompiled all the things for EL5.2 already ... but this is really unsatisfactory as there are hundreds of 3rd party apps that will need to be recompiled.

The problem is (as Bill Nottingham already pointed out) that several files are in a location that would conflict if a compatibility package were produced. The bad areas are:


Those 2 shared areas are going to be hard to (if not impossible) make work.

Anyone have any GOOD ideas :D

Johnny Hughes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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