On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Matthew Dawkins wrote:
> Yeah we need some mechanism telling the builder that if you publish said pkg
> (lib) that it is going to break the following pkgs.
>
You need more than just notification of breakage imho.
In order to provide referential integrity and the ability to back out
of an ill advised change, the old packages MUST be preserved
somehow, not discarded.
re: referential integrity
Consider a user machine that has a package installed which upgrades
through an intermediate version of some library.
If the intermediate version is discarded by the final build of a
library, then
the user machine cannot be simply upgraded, without manual intervention.
It's not enough to say
Anything goes in Cooker, nor to simply notify to expect breakage.
because even in development with myriad changes (including toolchain)
where breakage is inevitable, there is often a need to verify a problem
with an older-but-now-discarded package.
73 de Jeff
> Things to consider is if the pkgconfig provides changes, if the depending
> pkgs will need patching, etc.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Denis Silakov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> On 12.12.2013 19:59, [email protected] wrote:
> Denis Silakov escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> In Prague, we have discussed with Robert that it would be nice to have
> packaging policies in OMV wiki. Currently we have this page:
> https://wiki.openmandriva.org/en/Linux_System_packaging_guidelines
> but this can be considered as a quick start guide, not the detailed policy.
>
> I suggest to import packaging policies from ROSA wiki:
> http://wiki.rosalab.ru/en/index.php/Category:Packaging_Policies
>
> they are based on old MDV documents, but most of them are adopted for
> modern reality. Some of them can be outdated and should be rechecked,
> but at least the following ones should be imported:
> * Libraries policy
> Libraries policy is now broken by design in abf. Unless one creates
> a new "compat" package to be able to rebuild from source after a
> major upgrade, as abf simply removes old packages.
> That said, I am breaking it now on several packages I maintain,
> to use the same, or almost identical spec of Fedora.
>
> Yes, old packages are removed by design, but I wouldn't say that this breaks
> library packaging policy which doesn't say anything about old libraries that
> should be kept in repos even if they cannot be built from active sources. I
> remember we had a discussion on this topic in abf-users ml quite long ago
> with Matthew and other maintainers but didn't come into single decision.
>
> In ROSA, we follow the libraries policy and rebuild all dependent packages if
> library changes its soname (and thus changes provides/pkg name/etc.). It is
> not so hard as it can seem to be but guarantees stability and possibility to
> quickly fix/rebuild any part of distribution.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Denis.
>
>
>
>
