On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 19:49 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > So if he introduces a libtalloc in epel to fix this he can carry the > > libtalloc from rhel, temporarily, to do so. B/c the samba3x pkger has > > already agreed to fix this in rhel 5.6 > > > This is not without cost, though.
Like what? > Policy should never be ignored. I disagree. Policy is a guideline, nothing more. > * Remove libtalloc-2.x from our repositories and anything that depends on > it. > - This is what we've done in the past. It leaves people who are upgrading > from RHEL-5.4 broken as they still have the old talloc on the system. > It prevents people who want to have the talloc-2.x dependent packages > from getting updates (EPEL doesn't provide them anymore) not a good option b/c it breaks user. > > * Create a talloc2-2.x package and remove the talloc-2.x package from EPEL. > - This will leave broken people who already have libtalloc-2.x from EPEL > installed. It will not lead to new breakage for people who have not yet > installed libtalloc from EPEL. We only maintain the talloc-2 package; > talloc-1.x is maintained by the RHEL maintainers. This is also what > we've done i nthe past where the ability resides. We've intentionally left users broken? Wow, that's classy. > * Create a talloc1-1.x package and leave libtalloc-2.x in EPEL. > - As long as the RHEL package is using the automatic library provides, > I think this would work, right? The samba package will require > libtalloc.so.1 which is provided by this package. The current EPEL > packages will require libtalloc.so.2 which is provided by the current > EPEL libtalloc-2.x package. This means that we are put on the hook for > maintaining the libtalloc1 packages through security issues, bugfixes, > problems that the RHEL maintainers solve in their talloc1 package, etc. > Having a constant dialog with the RHEL maintainers to get their changes > into our package simultaneously seems like the best step here. It also > means that we make the job of Red Hat support harder but they can fall > back on the "You have a third party repo installed, please uninstall > those packages" if the customer is willing. Why introduce a package? How does this make it easier/better than just introducing the RIGHT dep into the existing pkg? With a package you have a lot more garbage to maintain - with just adding the dep you can phase it out in an update and not have to add any obsoletes or conflicts garbage. -sv _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
