https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2514855



--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #4)
> 
> The subpackages with shared libraries need to conflict with the equivalent
> non-compat subpackage with the same soname.  The easiest way to do that is
> to conflict with the soname itself.  Here's an example for how to do it for
> libavcodec5-free (along with a corresponding comment suggestion).
> 
>     # This compat package cannot be installed at the same time as the base
> package
>     # of the same soname version due to file conflicts.  Different soname
> versions
>     # can be installed in parallel.
>     %ifarch armv7hl i686
>     Conflicts: libavcodec.so.%{av_codec_soversion}
>     %else
>     Conflicts: libavcodec.so.%{av_codec_soversion}()(%{__isa_bits}bit)
>     %endif
> 
> The devel subpackages (if you keep them) also need to conflict with the
> equivalent non-compat devel subpackages.  The easiest way to do that is to
> conflict with the pkgconfig name.
> 
>     # This compat devel package cannot be installed at the same time as the
> base
>     # devel package due to file conflicts, regardless of soname version.
>     Conflicts: pkgconfig(libavcodec)
> 

Thank you.
I knew there needed to be some conflict, but didn't know what was the correct
way to do it.

> =============================================================================
> ===
> 
> Currently the subpackages follow the pattern of adding the compat version as
> a suffix after the subpackage name.
> 
>     %package -n libavcodec5%{?pkg_suffix} -> libavcodec5-free
> 
> This isn't wrong per se, but I think it is worth considering a different
> approach.
> 
>     %package libavcodec%{?pkg_suffix} -> ffmpeg5-libavcodec-free
> 
> In compat packages I've maintained before doing the former approach ended up
> being confusing.  I like the mapping of "this is libavcodec, from ffmpeg5"
> personally.  It's a subjective thing, but I wanted to bring it up as an
> alternative in case you like it.

I like your way of doing it better.  I have changed that.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2514855

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202514855%23c7

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to