[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 #20 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>  2009-01-14 09:57:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Other packages failing to rebuild have also prevented major packages in 
> > your sense from being upgraded. I can see no gain to loose dependency
> > on this package for the reason you raised (and for this package
> > you can simply remove this, while for gnome-desktop (for example)
> > we actually have to wait until (almost) all package are rebuilt)
> 
> I was not talking about packages that fail to rebuild but about packages that
> stop working after an update, although all dependencies are still met.

So my viewpoint is that in this case the dependency is _not_
satisfied because gget-epiphany _actually_ needs epiphany(abi) = 2.22.

For ruby, all ruby modules package have "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8"
even if they are noarch and currently this is mandatory by ruby
packaging guideline on Fedora. 
With forcely removing "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" line from the spec
file for ruby module package built as noarch, the package will allow
ruby to be upgraded to 1.9 or so (I don't know ETA on Fedora, though), 
however then the ruby module will stop working. 
Current ruby package guideline strictly bans this.

> Please ask yourself, what is better from a users point of view:
> a) When epiphany gets updated he will loose the functionality of the gget
> extension until it's getting rebuilt. When gget gets updated afterwards,
> everything is fine again: everything works, no orphaned dirs
> b) When epiphany gets updated the update will fail due to broken deps. The user
> has to work around them by removing gget-epiphany-extension and installing it
> and to re-install it when it was rebuilt. Or he has to wait and to bear the
> risk that epiphany itself gets broken.

So my opinition is b) (and on rawhide this frequently happens because
it's rawhide... On released stable branches this should not occur)

> > Then:
> > if epiphany has 2.22{,X} version, the epiphany won't conflict
> > with these two.
> 
> You are right, I did not think if the minor version. Nevertheless "Conflicts"
> must only be used when packages really conflict, this means they cannot be
> installed at the same time, e.g. because both provide the same files or
> functionality.

This is exactly "functionality" case.

> And we have mozilla-filesystem and we have ... I think a filesystem package
> would be overkill here, but I agree you pointed out some valid points.
> 
> OK, but I want to make a constructive suggestion and not only open a bug. So
> hat do you think abut my suggestion from the bottom of comment #13?

Well, I don't know if I grasped what you want to say here correctly,
however anyway my current idea is
- ephiphany should have "Provides: epiphany(abi) = 2.22" or so
- epiphany should own %_libdir/epiphany/XXXX/extensions (and
  some other epiphany related directories if any)

-- 
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.