Bug 58942
| Summary: | should gnome-libs obsolete db1? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide | Reporter: | Jonathan Kamens <jik> |
| Component: | gnome-libs | Assignee: | Havoc Pennington <hp> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 1.0 | CC: | aleksey, alikins, goeran, katzj, notting, pc-redhat, radford |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i386 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2004-10-28 18:44:55 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 79579, 100644 | ||
|
Description
Jonathan Kamens
2002-01-28 13:36:55 UTC
The idea is that in rawhide everything else depending on db1 will go away, and it will remain purely to maintain the gnome-libs ABI. I was advised not to Obsoletes: db1 for now, but I don't really understand the technical issues there. *** Bug 59264 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Jeremy, Bill - should I obsolete db1? The downside is that adding an obsoletes means that upgrades where db1 was installed (basically, all installs) will always pull in gnome-libs, which I'm not sure we really want to do :/ Just having a conflicts might be the best solution (though I'd need to double-check what the installer would do in that case) Also, it needs to not freak out RHN, whichever solution we choose. The goal is that anaconda and up2date's code will be a lot more similar now so that we can catch the freak-ish rhn cases during installer testing Does this suggest a need for a new kind of "Obsoletes" dependency
("MayObsolete"?) that would allow removing "MayObsoleted" package when the new
package is installed, but would not pull in the new package just to obsolete the
old one?
*** Bug 69185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Is there a course of action here that's clearly safe and better than the status quo, or should we just say screw it? *** Bug 73138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 73139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Does gnome-libs need to contain a shared db1 library? Wouldn't linking it statically against its own db1 work around the problem? This bug surfaces every once in a while, and will probably continue as the GNOME1 libs aren't something that is easy to get completely rid of... If libgnome currently links to shared db1 it changes the ABI to switch to static db1, right? Oh we can get rid of gnome-libs 1.x, just you wait. ;-) Pretty much just waiting on gnucash. Does this bug still need to be open? What is the concrete change to make at this point? I believe the bug still exists, but it may be mostly moot, considering how long ago Red Hat last released a db1 package. I don't know enough about how upgrading from a Red Hat release that old would work to know whether the bug still matters. From User-Agent: XML-RPC Doesn't seem relevant anymore... |