Heads-up: libdap and libnc-dap updates

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Tue Sep 9 13:04:59 UTC 2008


On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 07:44:04PM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patrice Dumas <pertusus <at> free.fr> writes:
> > I don't want to do devel compat package, I don't think it is needed,
> > and this compat package should be removed in F12 or so.
> 
> That makes no sense at all. Either the packages build against the new library, 
> then they should simply be rebuilt, or they don't, in which case the -devel 
> package for the compatibility library MUST be provided or the dependent 
> packages don't rebuild anymore. We're trying hard to get FTBFS bugs fixed, 

The objective is not to have to rebuild gdal immediately.

> intentionally causing new ones is a very bad idea. What if one of the dependent 
> packages has a security issue?

This are not conventional FTBFS created here, but a very controlled one.
I maintain all the libdap dependent packages, except gdal, but I watch
gdal.

> IMHO, compatibility libraries without a -devel package should be banned 
> entirely. If the compatibility package is needed, so is the 
> corresponding -devel package, unless the changes are strictly ABI-only with 
> 100% source compatibility (usually they aren't)! And in that rare event, a mass 
> rebuild is a better solution than a compatibility package.

It may be convenient not to have to rebuild a software everytime
upstream introduces ABI change, for some softwares (like numerical
models), not tracked in rpm. so I think that doing compatibility
libraries or not, with or without devel subpackage should be left to 
the maintainer.

In the case of libdap, ABI is very unstable, but API doesn't change 
much (except in that case) so I don't think doing compat packages in 
the general case is interesting. I will also avoid to do it in the
present case, since Orion is against (and he is the potential reviewer
;-) and I agree that it was not really needed.

--
Pat




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list