On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 8:13 AM Michael J Gruber <m...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Il 03/03/23 19:00, Michael J Gruber ha scritto: > > What about: > > > > - create a compat-portmidi0 package and move current portmidi there > > (bonus: mark it as deprecated) > > - change frescobaldi to require the compat package until a fix is > available > > - update current portmidi package to v2 > > That is possible in the long term, anyway. But it takes time unless you do > this on released Fedoras, too. > Compatibility packages do not get a "compat-" prefix any more; they only get a version suffix. The old portmidi could be portmidi217 (to match the old versioning) or possibly portmidi0 (to match the soversion). It's also preferred (but I'm not sure that it's written down or is just a discussion within the FPC right now) that the un-suffixed version is the latest one. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple > > BTW, this is not the first time such a discussion arise and I think > > FESCo / Packaging Guidelines must provide a definitive answer for this. > > Thanks to Sergio I know a precedent know. I'll take another look at pm2 to > see if can somehow avoid the conflicts without creating hardships for > depending packages, and otherwise go for the middleground plan which will > require a review for te "new" package in any case. > Compatibility packages do not need a review. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process -- Elliott
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
