[Bug 171314] Review Request: compat-gtkhtml36

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: compat-gtkhtml36


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171314





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-04-25 13:01 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'll remove the static libraries - they are not needed.
> With respect to the name - core uses compat-*
> 
> compat-db.i386                           4.2.52-4               core            
> compat-gcc-32.i386                       3.2.3-55.fc5           core            
> compat-gcc-32-c++.i386                   3.2.3-55.fc5           core            
> compat-gcc-32-g77.i386                   3.2.3-55.fc5           core            
> compat-libf2c-32.i386                    3.2.3-55.fc5           core            
> compat-libgcc-296.i386                   2.96-135               core            
> compat-libstdc++-296.i386                2.96-135               core            
> compat-openldap.i386                     2.3.19_2.2.29-4        core            
> compat-readline43.i386                   4.3-2.1                core            
> compat-slang.i386                        1.4.9-27.2.1           core     

Note that none of the above have a -devel package; that's what I was getting at
regarding runtime and build-time compatibility.

> With respect to the devel package - it obviously isn't needed for runtime use,
> but it may be useful for building software that either doesn't work with new
> gtkhtml - or for software where the port to the new gtkhtml3 isn't as good as
> the older version.

Yes, I get that - after all that's why this package is here.

The package naming guidelines say this:

Multiple packages with the same base name

For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions of a
package in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras, to be installed simultaneously. When
doing so, the package name should reflect this fact. The most recent version of
a package should use the base name with no versions, and all other addons should
note their version in the name. The exception to this are kernel and
kernel-module-* packages, which can have multiple versions installed
concurrently with the same base name (but different versions).

Example:
openssl occasionally has multiple versions in Fedora for backwards compatibility.
The most current version of openssl has Name: openssl
The previous version of openssl has Name: openssl096b
Note that we do not use delimiters in the name in this situation, we remove the
period '.' from the version number and attach it to the name.



To be honest I think that the name you have is better but the precedents and
naming guidelines suggest otherwise.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.