Re: Where to put spec files...

[Evandro Fernandes Giovanini <evandrofg ig com br>]

Em Seg, 2002-01-21 ās 16:19, Chris Chabot escreveu:
> >
> >
> >Mandrake is using the library policy used in debian packages:
> >For example, gtkhtml/libgtkhtml19/libgtkhtml19-devel.
> >
> Ok.. that does suck ;-) However, if we get a knowledgable mandrake 
> packager, wouldnt it be posible to use 'Obsoletes' and 'Conflicts' in 
> the RPM to deal with this semi-grasefully? The nice thing about 
> attempting to solve some problems this way would be that it doesnt 
> conflict with other platforms, since those package names are not in use 
> on those platforms.. so basicly there ignored.

1) It doesn't suck, it's better! ;)

2) Mandrake adds Provides: to their packages to provide compatibility.
For example, the libglib1.2-1.2.10-1mdk package provides glib =
1.2.10-1mdk. So there's no dependency problems, except when you try to
upgrade to a Red Hat package that doesn't have an Obsoletes: libglib1.2
< 1.2.10-2). 

> 
> >>I'd say, lets make our own naming convention (ie 
> >>"base_package_name-major.minor.sub.RPKFORMAT", and use the redhat / 
> >>gnome style naming for our libraries (gconf2, gnome-vfs2, etc) This way 
> >>
> >Do I get it wrong... redhat style and gnome style are a little bit
> >different now? (e.g gconf2/gnome-vfs2 etc for Redhat, and gconf/gnome-vfs
> >for Gnome)
> >
> Well, yes and no... thats actualy one of my many hangups with the 
> current packaging situation.
> 
> The tarbals are names in the base_name-version convention style (ie 
> gconf-1.1.6), however the location into which they install, and the 
> naming of their libraries are following the -2.0 style.
> 
> the problem with following the base_name-version style is that it messes 
> up the whole concept of being able to have both gnome 1.4 and 2.0 
> libraries installed on your system.
> 
> This will not bite you if you do a simple ./configure && make && make 
> install from the tarballs, however for packaging, which _removes_ the 
> files of the package your upgrading, the problems are very present ;-)
> 

If you rename gconf-1.1 to gconf2, you're doing it randomly. Why not
rename gconf-1.0 to gconf1, instead?

> (ps, this is why i, where my knowledge was sufficient, put in Conflicts 
> < old_gnome_version in the RPMS im building, you _need_ a newer gnome 
> for the dual install to work).
> 

It would be nice to have that somewhere on gnome.org, since the -devel
packages for gnome2 will need that in all distributions.

--
Evandro