https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608
--- Comment #23 from Kamil Páral <kpa...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #18)
> Oops, I made a copy and paste error in the Provides/Obsoletes bits, the
> correct lines are:
>
> Provides: dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: dosbox < %{version}-%{release}
I believe this is not correct. According to the documentation [1], and given
that dosbox's highest NVR is dosbox-0.74.3-6.fc34 [2], I believe it should be:
> Provides: dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: dosbox < 0.74.4
I chose to bump the version field instead of release, because there's a mass
rebuild happening in Rawhide and the release field might be bumped
automatically. Of course this assumes that the dosbox developer will not
package and release 0.74.4 or higher (which is, I assume, agreed on, and the
dosbox package can be removed from Fedora once dosbox-staging is approved and
built).
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dosbox
> This is a new dependency for 0.76.0, that's why it was omitted earlier. One
> thing I forgot to add in spec 0.76.0-1 - we actually depend on FluidSynth >=
> 2.0 (therefore this spec file won't work for Fedora 32 which ships FluidSynth
> 1.1). Should I specify the package version in here? There's also a similar
> story for SDL2 - we specifically depend on >= 2.0.2 (but all Fedora versions
> provide it).
If you know specific minimum version, I believe it should be explicitly listed,
because it prevents errors. That is nicely illustrated with the Fedora 32
situation - the package requirements should stop an incorrect situation from
happening - like a failed build due to insufficient library versions, or a
completed build but a broken functionality in the final binary. In this case,
either dosbox-staging can't be submitted to Fedora 32, or the FluidSynth
maintainer needs to be asked to update the F32 version to >= 2.0 (which might
or might not be appropriate for a stable Fedora release, that's their area of
expertise).
Hans, please correct me if I'm wrong about some of that :-)
> Yes, in vanilla DOSBox cursor keys are broken when using Wayland
> ...
Thanks for clarifications about the feature set.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
