On 08.01.2015 09:06, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:14:00 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
So what I'm planning to do is to retire the iax package in Fedora, and
have add to the iaxclient package the subpackages -libiax and
-libiax-devel, containing the iaxclient bundled libiax2, with appropriate
Obsoletes: iax 0.2.3
Provides:iax = 0.2.3
Obsoletes:iax-devel 0.2.3
Provides: iax-devel = 0.2.3
(Question at this point: is it legal to provide a version which is not
the package version?)
Yes.
Especially for virtual packages. That version could be anything, even
an API version different from the software release version.
Note, though, that the Provides won't meet the requirement of any
arch-specific deps, such as Requires: iax-devel%{?_isa} = 0.2.3
You probably want anyone to Requires: iaxclient-libiax-devel%{?_isa} ...
instead in the future. Keeping alife the iax-devel name is not a good
idea if there is no arch-specific counter-part.
Actually since in Fedora there is no-one with Requires or BuildRequires
on iax{-devel} (except Cocinella, which as mentioned above is
unnecessary and I'll fix), I'll indeed just drop the Provides.
Whether splitting of subpackages for libiax makes sense depends on the
dependencies within iaxclient. It would not be the first package where
somebody splits off things into subpackage-madness without the extra
packages not being optional.
In the case of sflphone, it only depends on the actual libiax, and not
also on the libiaxclient library, so there is at least one user outside
of iaxclient of the libiax subpackage.
Thanks for the clarifications,
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
