Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Adam Williamson wrote: It's usually possible to have the devel packages co-exist by renaming the new library (make it libopenal-soft.so). This may require a small patch to any app you want to build against the new version (make it look for libopenal-soft instead of just libopenal), but I think this is preferable to conflicting -devel packages. Right, see also the hackery we do to allow kdelibs-devel and kdelibs3-devel to coexist. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Jochen Schmitt wrote: Pushing openal-soft info F-11/F-10 is a violation of the Fedora updating policy. It's not. It's entirely acceptable to bump a soname if there's a good reason to and dependent packages WILL have to get rebuilt. It would be impossible to update something like xulrunner for security fixes otherwise. That said, in this case, IMHO there are too many dependent packages to force such a global rebuild. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 10:32 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 04:50 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 00:02 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: Only the devel packages conflicts. Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Why is there no way to fix it??? See my first mail on this thread. I did , but it doesn't explain why maintainers shouldn't be able to fix it. Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. It got fixed by not obsoleting openal in the stable branches. So where is the problem then? I don't understand the bother. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 02:23 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: See my first mail on this thread. I did , but it doesn't explain why maintainers shouldn't be able to fix it. How would they be able to fix it exactly? openal-soft earlier obsoleted openal in the stable branches. openal-soft maintainer also filed bug reports asking all the maintainers to rebuild the packages that depended openal in Rawhide, Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. A rebuild is only possible in Rawhide since openal-soft is not in the build root for other branches. All this information is already in the bug report I linked to in the original mail. Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. It got fixed by not obsoleting openal in the stable branches. So where is the problem then? I don't understand the bother. It got fixed only later. For a while all the packages that depended on openal was broken in multiple branches. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 14:57 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 02:23 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: See my first mail on this thread. I did , but it doesn't explain why maintainers shouldn't be able to fix it. How would they be able to fix it exactly? openal-soft earlier obsoleted openal in the stable branches. openal-soft maintainer also filed bug reports asking all the maintainers to rebuild the packages that depended openal in Rawhide, Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. A rebuild is only possible in Rawhide since openal-soft is not in the build root for other branches. All this information is already in the bug report I linked to in the original mail. Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. The obsolete was added *incorrectly* for the stable branches and has been fixed now. Read the bug report I referenced in the original mail before replying. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild is unnecessary or not. I know there are a couple of people who want to rebuild against openal-soft. In fact, Thomas was asked to push it to F-10 and F-11 because a package needs it to fix a crasher bug. The obsolete was added *incorrectly* for the stable branches and has been fixed now. Read the bug report I referenced in the original mail before replying. I *did* read it. I just wanted to answer back to you incorrect statement that it was broken and there was no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:24:38 +0530, Rahul wrote: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. The obsolete was added *incorrectly* for the stable branches and has been fixed now. Read the bug report I referenced in the original mail before replying. You two are talking past eachother IMO. As I understand it, Christoph refers to anyone who wishes to (re)build with the new openal-soft packages, regardless of whether it must be done or not. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 03:54 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild is unnecessary or not. The maintainer of openal-soft has already admitted that the obsolete was incorrect and fixed it in Fedora and Fedora 10 and informed me about it offlist. I am a maintainer of a package (tremulous) affected by the obsolete and I am not supposed to say that it is unnecessary to rebuild? That doesn't make any sense to me. What exactly are you fighting about now? The problem is already solved. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 03:57 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:24:38 +0530, Rahul wrote: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. The obsolete was added *incorrectly* for the stable branches and has been fixed now. Read the bug report I referenced in the original mail before replying. You two are talking past eachother IMO. As I understand it, Christoph refers to anyone who wishes to (re)build with the new openal-soft packages, regardless of whether it must be done or not. I know the process to do it if it was necessary to do so. It is simply not applicable in the current situation since the obsolete was added incorrectly. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 16:29 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:54 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild is unnecessary or not. The maintainer of openal-soft has already admitted that the obsolete was incorrect and fixed it in Fedora and Fedora 10 and informed me about it offlist. Thomas is a first timer, who joined Fedora recently. Please don't judge him by your standards and please don't expect him to follow procedures that are not even outlined in the wiki. I am a maintainer of a package (tremulous) affected by the obsolete and I am not supposed to say that it is unnecessary to rebuild? You can only speak for yourself and your package, but not for other maintainers or packages. That doesn't make any sense to me. What exactly are you fighting about now? The problem is already solved. The problem is solved, but your incorrect statement about maintainers not being able to fix their packages was still not corrected on the list. I just wanted to correct that. I'm not fighting, I'm protecting a fellow friend of mine against unjustified accusations. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 08:32 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Thomas is a first timer, who joined Fedora recently. Please don't judge him by your standards and please don't expect him to follow procedures that are not even outlined in the wiki. I am judging anyone but if don't break other packages needs to be a explicit guideline, feel free to write up a draft. The problem is solved, but your incorrect statement about maintainers not being able to fix their packages was still not corrected on the list. I just wanted to correct that. I'm not fighting, I'm protecting a fellow friend of mine against unjustified accusations. Stop being dramatic. You have misread what I said. I, as a maintainer cannot fix the problem introduced by a incorrect obsolete in a underlying library since I am not the maintainer of that library. It should be fixed by the maintainer of the library themselves. Nothing incorrect about that. Neither is it unjust to ask a person to fix the problem they introduced. The maintainer has now fixed the problem and situation is resolved. End of discussion. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/16/2009 11:52 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel (because of the same library with the different soversion), however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict. Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so This would make sense to me. Do consumers of openal not make use of the pkgconfig files? If not, do they use configure scripts that make it easy to do this? My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts [...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts [...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...] So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. openal-soft is not a compatibility package. The old openal at most could be described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft. nod I can see the argument that openal is a compat package. Here's the Complete Guidelines that reference that: Compat Package Conflicts It is acceptable to use Conflicts: in some cases involving compat packages. These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and foo-compat-devel packages need to Conflict:. Whenever possible, this should be avoided. So the vagueness here is the feasibility of updating packages to look in the alternate locations for the compat files. As mschwendt is pointing out, the pkgconfig file indicates this should be relatively easy. Is there some other information about this that we should know? We also usually introduce compat packages during rawhide/development. This lets us work out any kinks and get as many packages ported to the new interface as possible. Pushing this kind of change to a stable release needs to be thought out and discussed on this list. We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice. I agree with this. -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 11:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: This would make sense to me. Do consumers of openal not make use of the pkgconfig files? If not, do they use configure scripts that make it easy to do this? In the case of my package which uses openal (alienarean), it dlopens the openal library. So, while it isn't making use of pkgconfig (or configure scripts), it is easy enough for me to point it to the right library to dlopen. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 00:30 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: On F-10/11 the whole rebuild is not preferable, however it seems that actually openal-soft is also needed on F-10/11 to fix some bugs (bug 515109). So on F-10/11, it was decided to make openal and openal-soft installable in parallel (not making openal-soft obsolete openal) and make openal-devel and openal-soft-devel in conflict (not making openal-soft-devel obsolete openal-devel) to avoid mass rebuild. It's usually possible to have the devel packages co-exist by renaming the new library (make it libopenal-soft.so). This may require a small patch to any app you want to build against the new version (make it look for libopenal-soft instead of just libopenal), but I think this is preferable to conflicting -devel packages. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Confusion with openal-soft
Hi, Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for others. What would be the right way to revert these commits? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517715#c1 Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Am 16.08.2009 14:00, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, Rahul wrote:
Hi,
Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and
Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these
branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for
others. What would be the right way to revert these commits?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517715#c1
As I see it, openal-soft has not been tagged into the F11/F10 buildroots
anyway, and that means nobody can rebuild with it.
$ koji latest-pkg dist-f11-build openal-soft
Build Tag Built by
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
openal-soft is intended to replace openal (bug 501132), so on rawhide
openal-soft{,-devel} have Obsoletes (not conflicts): openal{,-devel}.
Note that this will require rebuilds of packages depending on
openal on rawhide (because of soname bump).
On F-10/11 the whole rebuild is not preferable, however it seems that
actually openal-soft is also needed on F-10/11 to fix some bugs
(bug 515109). So on F-10/11, it was decided to make openal and
openal-soft installable in parallel (not making openal-soft obsolete
openal) and make openal-devel and openal-soft-devel in conflict (not
making openal-soft-devel obsolete openal-devel) to avoid mass rebuild.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Only the devel packages conflicts. Am 16.08.2009 16:47, schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, you wrote: Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for others. What would be the right way to revert these commits? Pushing openal-soft info F-11/F-10 is a violation of the Fedora updating policy. So I'M wondering why someone have filled a rebuild request for blender for this reason. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: Only the devel packages conflicts. Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel (because of the same library with the different soversion), however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict. Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts [...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts [...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...] So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. openal-soft is not a compatibility package. The old openal at most could be described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft. We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
First of all, please make it clear under what branch
you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/17/2009 03:52 AM +9:00:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one
can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so
Again,
- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
(i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
ends)
So on rawhide there is no need that openal-soft should be relocated.
Just openal{-devel} is to be dropped.
- And I don't think there is a strong need for avoiding conflict
on -devel packages (not on between openal/openal-soft) on F-10/11.
If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.
My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with
regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts
[...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts
[...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...]
So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. openal-soft
is not a compatibility package. The old openal at most could be
described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft.
Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are
made as such).
We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy
to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:34:20 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
First of all, please make it clear under what branch
you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.
With regard to Conflicts, the policies apply to all branches.
There are still open bugzilla tickets filed long ago with packagers
not taking action on resolving implicit conflicts. Now with this
openal incident, an explicit Conflicts tag is added as what seems
to be the first choice due to laziness or so.
Again,
- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
(i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
ends)
Replacing packages does not need any Conflicts, but just a proper
Obsoletes/Provides pair.
If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.
Explicit Conflicts are a general problem. They are not specific
to this package. And bugzilla is not good for discussions.
Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are
made as such).
Not their -devel packages. The spec in cvs contains an explicit Conflicts
tag.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:34:23 +0200, you wrote: Hello Jochen i have closed the Ticket for rebuild. But you must rebuild it in F12. Yes, I have rebuilt blender agains freealut-1.1.0-10, which was rebult agains openal-soft. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt References: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126989 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126871 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 00:02 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: Only the devel packages conflicts. Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Why is there no way to fix it??? Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 04:50 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 00:02 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: Only the devel packages conflicts. Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Why is there no way to fix it??? See my first mail on this thread. Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. It got fixed by not obsoleting openal in the stable branches. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
