[packman] packman repo issues with openSUSE 11.0 continued
hpj at urpla.net
Thu Oct 2 18:08:26 CEST 2008
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
> see here for more information on the shared library 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,
More information about the Packman