[packman] Re: [PM] pulseaudio 0.9.7 (openSUSE 10.3/x86_64)
wberrier at novell.com
Thu Dec 6 05:56:08 CET 2007
Thanks for getting back to me on this. Sorry it's taken so long to
respond. I'm CC'ing Takashi for his input as well.
But yes, you are correct. According to the policy, each of those
libraries should be in their own subpackages.
I still think it's overkill, and doesn't offer any benefit in this
particular situation. Reasons:
1. if a library, ie libpulse-simple, is updated, the rest of the
libs built from the pulseaudio tarball will also be updated.
2. I can't imagine wanting 2 versions of libpulse or any related
libs on my system. I think this sort of change would be done
when it's absolutely necessary, not in preparation for some
future event that possibly may never happen.
The main rationale of the policy is to avoid #2.
Additional notes below...
Thanks for your effort on this. I'm really looking forward to having
native pulseaudio support in suse 11.
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 20:55 +0100, Toni wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 13. November 2007 schrieb Wade Berrier:
> > Hi Toni,
> > I installed pulseaudio from 10.3, and then upgraded all packages from
> > packman with zypper.
> > The problem is that not all of my installed pulse packages were
> > upgraded:
> > berrier:/ # rpm -qa | grep pul
> > **pulseaudio-devel-0.9.6-39
> > libao-pulse-0.9.3-32
> > pulseaudio-0.9.7-0.pm.2
> > alsa-plugins-pulse-1.0.14-41
> > gstreamer010-pulse-0.9.5-0.pm.1
> > libpulsecore4-0.9.7-0.pm.2
> > **pulseaudio-libs-0.9.6-39
> > There's not an upgrade path for:
> > pulseaudio-devel
> > pulseaudio-libs
> If I add obsoletes and requires for all possible pulseaudio packages, that
> will be a fulltime job. Sorry, if SuSE is propagating standards and don't act
> and package their packages after these standards, I don't see the necessity
> to change my package layout.
> Perhaps you should file a bug on bugzilla for changing the package-layout of
> the pulseaudio packages according to the SuSE-Shared-Library Policy.
> > You could add obsoletes/provides so that libpulse-devel is installed and
> > pulseaudio-libs removed, but it seems it would be simpler to use the
> > same packaging scheme that pulseaudio uses in 10.3.
> No, not at all. I won't follow "old wrong package layouts".
> > What are the benefits to splitting the libs into subpackages? Doing so
> > seems to complicates the upgrade path.
> No it doesn't, see details of the Shared Library Policy:
Well, the upgrade path has obviously been complicated :) I had to
remove all the pulse rpms and then install fresh, just as you mentioned.
This isn't something that couldn't be fixed by some simple
Thanks again for your great packaging work in packman. If it wasn't for
packman, it's possible I'd still be using Ubuntu :)
> The simplest solution for you: delete all pulseaudio packages and reinstall
> the packman packages.
> And if you mixed up your system with packages from the build-system, you are
> expienced enough to do so.
> And to use pulseaudio, it is not needed to install the devel-packages.
> > Thanks!
> > Wade
> have fun
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Packman