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

Re: Confusion with openal-soft

First of all, please make it clear under what branch
you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.

Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/17/2009 03:52 AM +9:00:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:

Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:

Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:

I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.

This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.

Why?  In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one
can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so

- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
 (i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
 So on rawhide there is no need that openal-soft should be relocated.
 Just openal{-devel} is to be dropped.
- And I don't think there is a strong need for avoiding conflict
 on -devel packages (not on between openal/openal-soft) on F-10/11.

If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.

My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with
regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies?

[...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...]

[...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...]

So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. "openal-soft"
is not a compatibility package. The old "openal" at most could be
described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft.

Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are made as such).

We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy
to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice.


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