Re: Packages with breaking APIs
On 01/02/2023 11:51, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Benson Muite wrote: For Catch, there was an upgrade from 1 to 2. Similarly for FFTW, the main package uses the name FFTW, but it was FFTW3 before hand. Maybe one could use Catch3 or Catch2v3? Then change names later once more packages use the v3 interface? Normally older versions are broken out into versioned legacy packages and the main package is upgraded. Then reverse dependencies are either upgraded or pinned as needed. Which is what we did for catch before - there is catch1 and catch now. The slight complication/confusion is that the upstream repository is actually called Catch2 now though it's on v3.x but version one is in the same repository, just on a Catch1.x branch. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Packages with breaking APIs
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Benson Muite wrote: > > The review had gone through, and had created the package, then retired > it, but as the APIs are different, and this also applies to another > package I have under review, mbedTLS, wanted to know if there are > general guidelines on this. > > For Catch, there was an upgrade from 1 to 2. Similarly for FFTW, the > main package uses the name FFTW, but it was FFTW3 before hand. Maybe one > could use Catch3 or Catch2v3? Then change names later once more packages > use the v3 interface? > Normally older versions are broken out into versioned legacy packages and the main package is upgraded. Then reverse dependencies are either upgraded or pinned as needed. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Packages with breaking APIs
The review had gone through, and had created the package, then retired it, but as the APIs are different, and this also applies to another package I have under review, mbedTLS, wanted to know if there are general guidelines on this. For Catch, there was an upgrade from 1 to 2. Similarly for FFTW, the main package uses the name FFTW, but it was FFTW3 before hand. Maybe one could use Catch3 or Catch2v3? Then change names later once more packages use the v3 interface? On 2/1/23 13:44, Tom Hughes wrote: > There is already precedent for doing it with catch and I've said > that I plan to do it again so I don't know what more you want. > > Tom > > On 01/02/2023 10:13, Benson Muite wrote: >> Packages with breaking APIs between major version changes often keep >> maintaining the older version for some time after the new version is >> released. An example is FFTW which has both FFTW (version 3) and FFTW2 >> (version 2) within Fedora: >> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=fftw >> >> Is it reasonable to package versions with newer APIs separately? Of >> particular interest are: >> i) Catch >> a) Existing v2.3.10 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catch >> b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165410 >> ii) MbedTLS >> a) Existing v2.28.2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mbedtls >> b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154347 >> ___ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Do not reply to spam, report it: >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Packages with breaking APIs
There is already precedent for doing it with catch and I've said that I plan to do it again so I don't know what more you want. Tom On 01/02/2023 10:13, Benson Muite wrote: Packages with breaking APIs between major version changes often keep maintaining the older version for some time after the new version is released. An example is FFTW which has both FFTW (version 3) and FFTW2 (version 2) within Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=fftw Is it reasonable to package versions with newer APIs separately? Of particular interest are: i) Catch a) Existing v2.3.10 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catch b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165410 ii) MbedTLS a) Existing v2.28.2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mbedtls b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154347 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Packages with breaking APIs
Packages with breaking APIs between major version changes often keep maintaining the older version for some time after the new version is released. An example is FFTW which has both FFTW (version 3) and FFTW2 (version 2) within Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=fftw Is it reasonable to package versions with newer APIs separately? Of particular interest are: i) Catch a) Existing v2.3.10 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catch b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165410 ii) MbedTLS a) Existing v2.28.2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mbedtls b) BZ for v3.3.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154347 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
