Re: [courier-users] Courier-imap versioning and naming scheme makes RPM packaging difficult
On 2015-11-19 09:58 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > A given Linux distribution is going to either package Courier, or > Courier- IMAP. It makes little sense to package both. As such, a given > Linux distribution will need to track the version of only one or the > other package This is true, however it doesn't work for third-parties who make generic RPMs provided in a single repository for all the RPM distros. Ajenti's ajenti-v-mail package is a good example of such. Except for the courier(-imap) dependency their RPMs work happily across distros. If Courier's packages had a sane (semantic) version system then everything could be fixed with minor tweaks to Courier's spec files. The Ajenti example could addressed by adding "Provides: courier-imapd" to both the Courier and Courier-IMAP packages so that Ajenti can depend on Courier imapd from either package via "Requires: courier-imap" and not care about exactly which package. However, if (hypothetically) Ajenti-V-mail required version > 0.75.0 or version > 4.16.2 then this solution wouldn't really work because RPM "Provides" can't really supply version number information without embedding it into the name, and this is a hack at best. -- Daniel Devine -- ___ courier-users mailing list courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
Re: [courier-users] Courier-imap versioning and naming scheme makes RPM packaging difficult
Daniel Devine writes:
The current situation in a nutshell:
* courier-0.75.0.tar.bz2 (let's call it "Tarball A") has the version
0.75.0 and produces RPM packages with the version number 0.75.0 - the
imapd package is called "courier-imap"
* courier-imap-4.16.2.tar.bz2 ("Tarball B") has the version 4.16.2 and
produces an RPM packages with the version number 4.16.2 - the imapd
package is called "courier-imapd"
* The code for imapd in Tarball A and Tarball B are pulled from the same
repository at the same revision (as in, Tarball A code is a subset of
the Tarball B code)
* Tarball A/"courier-imap" RPM puts the imapd executable at
/usr/lib/courier-imap/bin/imapd
* Tarball B/"courier-imapd" RPM puts the imapd executable at
/usr/lib/courier-imapd/bin/imapd
Basically this means that when creating an RPM package which depends on
courier IMAP you cannot define the dependency via package name because
there is two package names for the same dependency and if you require a
particular courier IMAP version you cannot express it because there is
two different version numbering systems (0.7x.x and 4.xx.x) and you
cannot (properly - technically you can) use paths to express solutions
for dependencies because imapd is placed in two different locations
(.../courier-imap/... and .../courier-imapd/...).
Is this problem known?
A given Linux distribution is going to either package Courier, or Courier-
IMAP. It makes little sense to package both. As such, a given Linux
distribution will need to track the version of only one or the other package.
pgpNuRIuvSArK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
___
courier-users mailing list
courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
