Confusion with openal-soft

[Mamoru Tasaka]

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?
>>>  
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
>> 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

Again,
- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
  (i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
   ends)
  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?
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts
> [...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...]
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts
> [...] 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.

Regards,
Mamoru