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

Re: sqlite2 redux



On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:44:17 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 18:40 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:25:03 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 18:19 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:33:10 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > > > While yes, it will be solved by the first 'yum update' that happens
> > > > > (assuming the maintainers get themselves in gear and switch to
> > > > > sqlite2...), if this situation is avoidable with 10 minutes of work then
> > > > > why even have the user encounter it at all?
> > > > 
> > > > Can't follow you here, sorry.
> > > 
> > > This would involve creating a FC-3 branch for sqlite2 (which I can deal
> > > with, mostly) as well as having the FC-3 branches of all dependent
> > > packages switching to use sqlite2 instead of sqlite.
> > 
> > Aha! Renaming the package and the BuildRequires should be trivial.
> 
> My point exactly. Shall I request creation of the FC-3 branch?

This is again a question of whether SQLite v3 is needed for FC-3 by anybody
and what the packagers of existing SQLite v2 dependencies say about this
plan. Rather than renaming the SQLite v2 packages and packaging SQLite v3
for FC-3 just for fun, I'd say let's focus on FC-4 (which includes SQLite
v3). Also, it would be kind of limiting if you wanted to upgrade SQLite v3
in FC-3 Extras beyond the version that's included in FC-4. We've experienced
such a problem before with k3b when it moved from Extras into Core.


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