Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 20 February 2015 at 16:54, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 02/16/2015 04:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora. > > > > Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such > > regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by compat-libs. > > That ra

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 02/16/2015 04:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora. > > Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such > regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by compat-libs. That rather assumes that the only use for Fedora libraries is running

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Hi On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora. > > Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such > regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by compat-libs. In ideal conditions, this is fine but in the real world

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 02/16/2015 08:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 02/16/2015 05:10 PM, Martyn Foster wrote: >> >> >> On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler > > wrote: >> >> Christopher Meng wrote: >> > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as >> you

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

/*Ralf Corsepius */ wrote on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100: On 02/16/2015 05:10 PM, Martyn Foster wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler mailto:kevin.kof...@chello.at>> wrote: Christopher Meng wrote: > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as you

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 02/16/2015 05:10 PM, Martyn Foster wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler mailto:kevin.kof...@chello.at>> wrote: Christopher Meng wrote: > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as you think, > basically once a developer wants to install version X

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Christopher Meng wrote: > > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as you think, > > basically once a developer wants to install version X while then another > > people want to deploy things based on version Y, how to crack

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Christopher Meng wrote: > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as you think, > basically once a developer wants to install version X while then another > people want to deploy things based on version Y, how to crack this nut? > You can't just care about runtime. Then you nee

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0330, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have > multiple versions of the same library in distro (by making it *naturally* Mageia has something, but only meant to transition from one library version to the n

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 02/14/2015 09:38 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Who will review the new packages of these multiple versions? The process having been applied so far is the "adding a compat-package". In most cases this basically means to fork-off a package from an existing package and have this package revie

Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

> > > Who will review the new packages of these multiple versions? If we don't review it I think it's horrible to carry obsolete stuffs. Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as you think, basically once a developer wants to install version X while then another people want to

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Am 13.02.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Hedayat Vatankhah: I'm not sure if things will be (much) worse than the current situation. Maintainers already do maintain multiple versions of the same library, and also the upgrade path from a Fedora release to the next should work. My assumption was that the eff

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

/*Kevin Fenzi*/ wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:36:47 -0700: On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:21:17 +0330 Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: <...> But the thing is, it's really difficult to get right details about the new package. Forget to change a name somewhere or a provides or obsoletes. People mess this up all

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 02/13/2015 12:15 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: > Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > >> 2. No reviews are required for new libfooX packages (as it is not >> required right now when you update your libfoo package > > I disagree with this point, reviews are important, arguably *more* important > in special case

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:21:17 +0330 Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > Dear all, > I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. ...snip... > Proposal: let's make it possible to have multiple versions of the > same library installed, as far as their .so version permits that. >

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

/*Rex Dieter*/ wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:15:58 -0600: Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: 2. No reviews are required for new libfooX packages (as it is not required right now when you update your libfoo package I disagree with this point, reviews are important, arguably *more* important in special ca

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

/*Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos */ wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:11:49 +0100: On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 15:21 +0330, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: Dear all, I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have multiple vers

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > 2. No reviews are required for new libfooX packages (as it is not > required right now when you update your libfoo package I disagree with this point, reviews are important, arguably *more* important in special cases like parallel-installable libraries. > For -devel p

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Rex Dieter wrote: > Sure, additional documentation is always welcome. Are you willing to help > write some? My apologies, re-reading the whole thread, including the initial post, I see you did have a specific proposal... to which I responded separately to a couple of points (but otherwise, a g

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > It is possible, but it'll need package reviews for each new version. Yes, it is a new package so a new review will be required (for either the old-compat or the new-parallel-installable version). this requirement for an additional review is likely non-negotiable. >

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

/*Jan Zelený */ wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:15:08 +0100: On 13. 2. 2015 at 08:03:18, Rex Dieter wrote: Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: Proposal: let's make it possible to have multiple versions of the same library installed, as far as their .so version permits that It's already possible (you gave

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On 13. 2. 2015 at 08:03:18, Rex Dieter wrote: > Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > > Proposal: let's make it possible to have multiple versions of the same > > library installed, as far as their .so version permits that > > It's already possible (you gave several examples, like Qt) > > Am I missing somet

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > Proposal: let's make it possible to have multiple versions of the same > library installed, as far as their .so version permits that It's already possible (you gave several examples, like Qt) Am I missing something? Or rather, what leads you to believe that it is not

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 15:21 +0330, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > Dear all, > I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. > Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have > multiple versions of the same library in distro (by making it > *naturally* possi

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Don't containers already accomplish this same concept? jduncan - Original Message - From: "Hedayat Vatankhah" To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:51:17 AM Subject: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing mult

Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Dear all, I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have multiple versions of the same library in distro (by making it *naturally* possible) (and with minimal maintenance overhead), and for users/devel