Bug 1803934
| Summary: | Review Request: libhandy1 - Library with GTK+ widgets for mobile phones | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Yanko Kaneti <yaneti> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | decathorpe, klember, ngompa13, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-02-18 23:01:07 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Yanko Kaneti
2020-02-17 18:22:08 UTC
This review request is mostly a proposal. Won't go in if the current libhandy package goes a different way It probably makes sense to update libhandy to the v1 API version and then create a libhandy0 compat package for legacy usage (unless there's no legacy usage to speak of). I'm fine either way and don't have a strong opinion if should be libhandy and libhandy1, or libhandy and libhandy0, or libhandy1 and libhandy0 :) Yanko, I think you get to decide how you want it since you're the one doing the work here. I see you've done explicit Conflicts with libhandy-devel, why is that so? Can we avoid that somehow? Is it gtk-doc files conflicting? Can you split them out to a subpackage in that case, or ask upstream to include the library version in the gtk-doc file paths or something? (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3) > Yanko, I think you get to decide how you want it since you're the one doing > the work here. That's not really true. This is specified in the Packaging Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple According to these rules, the package names should be libhandy and libhandy0. - I feel the libhandy situation is more gtk,gstreamer like so the libhandyN name makes more sense to me - To kalev's question about the conflict. I think in 99% it makes zero sense supporting parallel installable _devel_ environments for the same library. just my 2c. To whomever cares enough, please do whatever you feel is right. Sorry for the noise. |