Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
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. |