*** Bug 443550 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 443542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 443549 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 443597 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 441233 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Ah, crap. You might wanna mention this on fedora-devel because this is going to
break all add-on packages (that are guideline compliant) built against 23.x, as
they will have automatically have  Requires: emacs(bin) >= 23.0.60, and so
they'll need a rebuild when 22.2 hits F-9.

I think only #443550 appears to be serious - but I cannot reproduce it myself.
The remaining ones can hopefully be fixed. For example, #443549 has a workaround
present. I am not sure what #443597 is about because I did not get any
surprising behaviour myself.

*** Bug 443849 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to comment #6)
> Ah, crap. You might wanna mention this on fedora-devel because this is going to
> break all add-on packages (that are guideline compliant) built against 23.x, as
> they will have automatically have  Requires: emacs(bin) >= 23.0.60, and so
> they'll need a rebuild when 22.2 hits F-9.

I'll chat with release engineering and see if we can sort this out.  Thanks for
the heads-up.

Chip

(In reply to comment #6)
> Ah, crap. You might wanna mention this on fedora-devel because this is going to
> break all add-on packages (that are guideline compliant) built against 23.x, as
> they will have automatically have  Requires: emacs(bin) >= 23.0.60, and so
> they'll need a rebuild when 22.2 hits F-9.

Bill Nottingham informs me: "I don't see anything with this sort of requires in
the current F9 repo."

Emacs-23 hit the repo very recently (too late to really be fully baked), so
there may not have been any rebuilds of add-on packages yet.

Chip

I'm pretty sure you're safe.  We'll watch closely but we have a week to catch
anything.

OK, splendid. Sorry for the noise.

You need to add an Epoch to emacs otherwise people wont get  downgraded.

There is also a patch thats not applied.  i have a patch to enable building on
sparc64.  I can fix all the issues at once if you like.

The following packages have some sort of versioned emacs dep:
	emacs-a2ps-0:4.13b-71.fc9.x86_64
	emacs-gnuplot-0:4.2.2-10.fc9.x86_64
	emacs-tuareg-0:1.45.6-4.fc9.noarch
	migemo-emacs-0:0.40-9.fc7.noarch
	emacs-lua-0:20071122-5.fc9.noarch
	emacs-ess-0:5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch
	emacs-cdargs-0:1.35-2.fc9.x86_64
	tmda-emacs-0:1.1.12-1.fc8.noarch
	emacs-vm-0:8.0.9.544-1.fc9.x86_64
	emacs-auctex-0:11.85-7.fc9.noarch
	emacs-muse-0:3.12-1.fc9.noarch
	emacs-bbdb-0:2.35-8.fc8.noarch

Theoretically, adding the epoch to the 'Version' field of the emacs-el pkgconfig
file and rebuilding will pick this up, unless the package is hardcoding the
version. Of course, as long as nothing has a requires on emacs 23, they will
'work' in F9 without adding the epoch to their dependency.

FESCo voted today to have normal packaging guidelines put in place.  Which means
that we need to have an Epoch in Emacs.  we release emacs 23,  so we need to
make sure upgrade paths are handled correctly.  Please ensure that the epoch is
added.

Epoch has been added to emacs.spec and fixed packages have been built, but not
yet tagged or signed.

The packages did not address comment #15.

Also, the packages do not seem to be installable because of

 Requires: emacs-common = %{version}-%{release}

Forgetting %{epoch} !

Yes, actually that's a deficiency in the emacs add-on packaging guidelines (mea
culpa). Ones the build of emacs 22 is in the repos, I think the course of
actions needs to be:

1) File bugs against the uninstallable emacs packages asking for them to be
rebuild, adding something like 
Requires: emacs(bin) = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
to the spec file

2) Emacs add-on package guidelines updating.

Jonathan - if the epoch is embedded in the pkg-config file, add-ons shouldn't
need to change their specs.

This should be fixed with 22.2-4.fc9

I can't seem to find any problems with current emacs packaging. Closing.