Discussion/permission to update bzr

BJ Dierkes wdierkes at 5dollarwhitebox.org
Sat Apr 17 00:53:47 UTC 2010

On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> So what do other people think here?  Is the over-the-wire and
> repository-format compatibility issues sufficient to override the API
> compatibility issues in this case?  As the maintainer, I definitely believe
> so but I await your input.


Have you considered the route of multiple packages at all?  I'm not encouraging, or voting... just curious (personally as far as bzr goes I'd say jump to 2.1).  If there is compatibility either way and people need 1.3, what would be your thoughts on maintaining major branches (with compatibility changes) separately:


My opinion would be to make bzr13 "Obsoletes: bzr < %{version}-%{release}"... and that bzr21 for example would "Conflict: bzr < 2.1" and "Provide: bzr = %{version}-%{release}"... all paths would be the same and the two couldn't live on the same box.  But 1.3 users can stay on 1.3, and the other 98% of us can move forward with the rest of the world. ;)

I know we've had discussions about this sort of thing in the passed but they've never ended with anything official (to my knowledge).



More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list