I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages -----------------
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
This policy would not be enforced retroactively (although maintainer compliance should be welcomed).
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 21:43 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
-1
Closing out devel-packages closes out packages which require older APIs/ABIs from rebuilding.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 21:43 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
-1
Closing out devel-packages closes out packages which require older APIs/ABIs from rebuilding.
If I'm reading the proposal correctly, this is more of a naming convention than a limitation on whether packages of libraries with older APIs can be created. On that basis, I'm +1.
-Toshio
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 22:59 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 21:43 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
-1
Closing out devel-packages closes out packages which require older APIs/ABIs from rebuilding.
If I'm reading the proposal correctly, this is more of a naming convention than a limitation on whether packages of libraries with older APIs can be created.
Hmm, I feel like reading a completely different text:
I read: "No Fedora packages may be built against them (compat-*)" == Close out packages from Fedora which can't be built against upstream packages.
I read: "Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files." == NO devel files (comprising compat-*-devel packages) are allowed.
Ralf
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:38PM -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
This policy would not be enforced retroactively (although maintainer compliance should be welcomed).
Usually the kind of packages you describe simply vanish from rawhide - e.g. if there is no use for a non-leaf package it is very soon removed.
Most current compat-* packages are used for some other Fedora package, or at least that was the case some time ago - maybe that changed.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:35:02PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:38PM -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I would like for the Packaging group to discuss the following policy:
""" compat-* packages
compat-* packages are for the sole purpose of providing obsolescent/obsolete libraries required by non-Fedora applications. No Fedora packages may be built against them, and no application packages may use the compat- namespace. Any -devel subpackage must be omitted via the removal or exclusion of development-related files. """
This policy would not be enforced retroactively (although maintainer compliance should be welcomed).
Usually the kind of packages you describe simply vanish from rawhide - e.g. if there is no use for a non-leaf package it is very soon removed.
Most current compat-* packages are used for some other Fedora package, or at least that was the case some time ago - maybe that changed.
BTW I was just trying to describe current usage of compat-*, I'm not against supplying Fedora users some libs that perhaps Fedora itself doesn't need anymore, but maybe a (significant?) amount of users still do.
Le mardi 19 février 2008 à 23:35 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit :
Usually the kind of packages you describe simply vanish from rawhide - e.g. if there is no use for a non-leaf package it is very soon removed.
+1
IMHO the most important property of compat packages is not that they have a devel conterpart or not, but that we clearly tell packagers "this bit is not to be used and will be removed mid-term". Restricting the compat naming to link-only packages will only make this removal process harder, as a lot of stuff will move to packages with no clear EOL target.
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:18 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 19 février 2008 à 23:35 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit :
Usually the kind of packages you describe simply vanish from rawhide - e.g. if there is no use for a non-leaf package it is very soon removed.
+1
IMHO the most important property of compat packages is not that they have a devel conterpart or not, but that we clearly tell packagers "this bit is not to be used and will be removed mid-term". Restricting the compat naming to link-only packages will only make this removal process harder, as a lot of stuff will move to packages with no clear EOL target.
Don't you realize the silliness of such a recommendation?
1. It's easy to circumvent (Simply don't use it)
2. It's technically counterproductive. compat packages are band aids to help out in cases where "upgrading" isn't easily applicable. Banning compat-*-devel packages voids this aspect.
Ralf
Le mercredi 20 février 2008 à 10:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
- It's technically counterproductive.
compat packages are band aids to help out in cases where "upgrading" isn't easily applicable. Banning compat-*-devel packages voids this aspect.
I've seem people proposing the creation of foo123 packages just to get around the "no devel for compat packages" rule proposed there. Don't tell me this is progress — those foo123 packages are going to stick a lot longer that compat packages would ever had.
So the "no devel" rule is nothing but hiding problems under the carpet. It does not make people less inclined to build against old versions, you just have bandaids that do not look like bandaids anymore.
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:56 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 20 février 2008 à 10:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
- It's technically counterproductive.
compat packages are band aids to help out in cases where "upgrading" isn't easily applicable. Banning compat-*-devel packages voids this aspect.
I've seem people proposing the creation of foo123 packages just to get around the "no devel for compat packages" rule proposed there.
Right, it's the escape to get around a silly proposal.
Don't tell me this is progress — those foo123 packages are going to stick a lot longer that compat packages would ever had.
They tend to stick longer, because they tend to be designed for parallel installation, often because of technical needs.
compat-<package> (without devel) tend to be introduced as temporary, legacy band-aid run-time packages.
So the "no devel" rule is nothing but hiding problems under the carpet.
No. It's closing the eyes in front of actual problems.
It does not make people less inclined to build against old versions, you just have bandaids that do not look like bandaids anymore.
You seem to be missing that it's almost always not a matter of will, but a matter of technical requirement to ship compat*/foo123 packages, to keep things going at all.
Or more abstract: Development is not a linear process, it has branches, curves and edges. Banning *devel packages from "compat" packages is trying to linearize development with a sledgehammer.
Ralf
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Ralf Corsepius -
Toshio Kuratomi