[packman] packman repo issues with openSUSE 11.0 continued

[Hans-Peter Jansen]

Am Donnerstag 02 Oktober 2008 schrieb Toni:
> Am Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2008 schrieb Hans-Peter Jansen:
> > Hi,
> >
> > next system, next issues:
> >
> >   file /usr/lib/liboil-0.3.so.0 from install of liboil0-0.3.15-0.pm.1
> > conflicts with file from package liboil-0.3.14-18.1
> >
> > # zyp se -s liboil*
> > Lese installierte Pakete...
> >
> > S | Name                | Typ   | Version       | Architektur |
> > Repository
> > --+---------------------+-------+---------------+-------------+--------
> >---- ------ i | liboil              | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1   | i586      
> >  | openSUSE-11.0-FTP
> >
> >   | liboil-devel        | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586        | Packman
> >   | 11.0 RPMs liboil-devel        | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1   | i586       
> >   | | openSUSE-11.0-FTP liboil-doc          | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 |
> >   | i586
> >   |
> >   |     | Packman 11.0 RPMs liboil-doc          | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1  
> >   |     | |
> >   |
> >   | i586        | openSUSE-11.0-FTP liboil0             | Paket |
> >   | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586        | Packman 11.0 RPMs liboil0-debuginfo  
> >   | | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586        | Packman 11.0 RPMs
> >   | liboil0-debugsource | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586        | Packman
> >   | 11.0 RPMs
> >
> > # rpm -q --provides -p
> > /srv/packman/11.0/i586/liboil0-0.3.15-0.pm.1.i586.rpm liboil = 0.3.12
> > liboil-0.3.so.0
> > liboil0 = 0.3.15-0.pm.1
> >
> > liboil0 seem to miss the usual Provides|Obsoletes: liboil lines.
>
> NO, won't be fixed.
>
> file a bug against the SuSE package, it is NOT following the SuSE-shared
> library policy, they have published now three times a update of the
> liboil package without changing it to fullfill their own policy.

Well, sure, they don't follow their own rules, but what do WE do here - 
hunting red herrings or get real jobs done? Make your choice.

> I won't 
> add everytime a new Provide/Obsolete statement in my package if the SuSE
> package is updated. Sorry. They have stated the policy and we try to
> follow it...

_IMHO_ this argument is mood. You stick one Provide/Obsolete statement into 
all packages you're going to replace with another name - and be done for 
the rest of the distros lifetime - thus it's a one time action - isn't it?
(probably refined with some distro version conditionals). FWICS, it's a sole 
matter of differing named packages, not of a naming policy of any kind.
 
> >   file /usr/lib/libschroedinger-1.0.so.0 from install of
> > libschroedinger0-1.0.5-0.pm.1 conflicts with file from package
> > libschroedinger-1_0-0-1.0.0-2.1
>
> same here, the SO-name of libschroedinger is 0 so IMHO our package is
> correct. ...

Yes, you are right, and being the package maintainer, your opinion isn't 
humble at all (contrary to mine), but I don't ask you to rename the package 
itself, just cope with the different name of the original you're trying to 
replace.

> see here for more information on the shared library policy:
> http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy

Those who make the rules are always correct (by definition) even if they 
don't follow them, but again, what do you want? A politically correct 
package, where users may have pain or do silly things on trying to 
workaround the issue, or a seamless transition of packages to packman, if 
users use your repo?

Toni, please rethink your standpoint. It's a minor step for you, but a big 
win for all users out there.

Thanks in advance,
Pete