On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Dexter Morgan at 15/06/11 09:26 did gyre and gimble: >> hello >> >> the last BS breakage makes me thing that we should adjust our >> packaging policy and add only one lib per lib package. >> >> >> On our last BS breakage we had as error : >> >> >> A requested package cannot be installed: >> seahorse-2.32.0-2.mga1.x86_64 (due to unsatisfied libgp11.so.0()(64bit)) >> >> >> because libgp11.so.0 was in libgcr0 but disappeared. >> >> if it was on libgp11_0 we would have been able to rebuilde seahorse >> against new libgcr-devel and the remove libgp11_0 when not needed >> anymore . >> >> >> WDYT about this new policy ? > > I'm not 100% sure it's all that different anyway. The same issue would > be true of sticking two libs into one lib package when they happen to > have the same major, but they later diverge and one of them changes > major before the other...
Yes this is why i think we should enforce "one lib per package". > I guess it's just good practice to keep things > separated out and I'm not sure the current lib policy actively > encourages the opposite. > > I'd say this is more of clarification of the policy :) Maybe but clarification is always good :D
