Bug 491946

Summary:	Review Request: odfpy07 - compat package for odfpy
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Matthew Daniels <danielsmw>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	a.badger, fedora-package-review, kwade, michel, notting
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-10-08 01:21:59 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 Matthew Daniels 2009-03-24 18:53:54 UTC

Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~danielsmw/odfpy07/odfpy07.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~danielsmw/odfpy07/odfpy07-0.7-3.fc10.src.rpm
Description: A compat package for odfpy.  This package was created and submitted to fix a bug with mw-render, which requires odfpy 0.7.  I should also note that this is my first package, and I'd need a sponsor before I could actually get this in the repositories.

Comment 1 Michel Lind 2009-03-25 14:40:45 UTC

The naming convention (I've not seen a guideline for this) appears to be to have compatibility packages be named compat-%{name} (or, more rarely, %{name}-compat). e.g. compat-db*, compat-gcc-*, compat-python24*.

How about compat-odfpy07?

Comment 2 Matthew Daniels 2009-03-25 14:53:30 UTC

The only guideline I was really going off of there was from the Naming Guidelines' example [1] about openssl and openssl096b.  I'd be happy to change it to compat-odfpy07 if that's the convention.  I'll upload a new SPEC/SRPM file as soon as I get the chance to make the edit.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name

Comment 3 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-04-02 01:20:01 UTC

The naming is fine.  Since there's no compile step in python, the compat-$FOO vs $FOO$VER naming is a little mixed.  I think $FOO$VER is better unless we're putting the module in some sort of private directory.

Comment 4 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-04-02 02:32:14 UTC

So, before we do this, has anyone tried submitting a port to odfpy0.8 for python-mwlibs upstream?  That's really the right thing to do.  (I'll add a patch to the python-mwlibs bug now).

Comment 5 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-06-23 22:24:31 UTC

Do we want to close this since mwlibs has been ported to the new odfpy?

Comment 6 Matthew Daniels 2009-10-08 01:21:34 UTC

This package became irrelevant when Ian Weller updated mw-render anyway, so I'm closing the bug request.