[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504





--- Comment #15 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-01-12 12:16:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> - As when epiphany is upgrade from 2.22 to 2.23, then
>   I guess gget-epiphany-extension will no longer work (although
>   I don't know this package well) unless gget is rebuilt
>   against new epiphany.

Correct. It will no longer work because epiphany won't find it, because it's
looking in a different location.

>   i.e. if epiphany can be upgraded without gget-epiphany-extension
>        is rebuilt, it is _already_ wrong. Not-rebuilt gget-epiphany-extension
>        should prevent epiphany from being upgraded in such a case
>        (theoretically).

I disagree. It's better to temporarily loose a certain functionality than
prevent epiphany from being updated. People who are using rawhide are used to
thinks breaking from time to time, but still they are running rawhide because
they want to follow the latest development.
What if the epiphany update is part of a larger Gnome update? The older
epiphany might no longer work with the updated Gnome stuff and then we make the
whole app useless instead of a single extension.

>   Some idea:
>   - Add "Conflicts: epiphany >= 2.23"
>         "Conflicts: epiphany < 2.22"

Congratulations, you have just made it conflict with _every_ epiphany release!
:)

>   - Ask epiphany maintainer to support "Provides: epiphany(abi) = 2.22",
>     for example.

And them make the extension "Requires: epiphany(abi) = 2.22"? What's the
advantage over "Requires: epiphany = 2.22"?


(In reply to comment #14)
> Also, as some packages already use %_libdir/epiphany/XXXX/extensions,
> making every package use this directory own this directory cannot be
> accepted and the owner of this directory must be unified.

Why? We have a couple of these situations whenever one package does not
necessarily depend on the other. Duplicate ownership of a dir is bad, but
unowned dirs are even worse.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.