[repo-coord] Re: GD >= 2.0 for pre FC2 ?

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:43:21AM +0200, Bent Terp wrote:
> [moved to repo-coord list, due to more general issues popping up]
> 
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 23:39, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > OK, unfortunatley I did not write up why I had to withdraw it.
> 
> It's perfectly - redhat has version "ancient" of a package, we need
> version "modern" and you give it to us. Then new redhat release with
> "modern" and you retire your package.
> Unfortunately, the fedoralegacy boys will only do bugfixes, no backports
> so to speak.
> 
> So, I've been wondering if there should be a "backport" repo to cover
> situations like these. If one adopts the blessed-by-Fedora(tm)
> releasetags, then it should be safe enough, i.e. the "official" gd for
> FC2 is gd-2.0.21-3 and so the backport would be 2.0.21-0.fdr.3 (or
> 0.fdr.4 if the first build fails....)

Well, the fedora.us release tags are multiple-repo unfriendly and that
was one of the main points of disagreement (it wouldn't have costed
them anything to use a disttag-repotag approach as we suggested, it
was not done due to tactical reasons ...)

The outcome is that now that fedora.us had to be split packages can
be upgraded from one repo to the other one-way only dependeing on the
repotag!

And AFAIK for fedora.us to become a Fedora Extras repo the fdr-tagging
will have to be dropped. Red Hat is apparently not willing to do
tagging on offical packages.

That being said we need a backport/backwards-compatibility
policy. ATrpms has taken over the Mandrake scheme (naming libs like
libfoo<libmajor>). It has proven to do a very good job at Mandrake,
and while other schemes could have been chosen, I'd suggest to use
their scheme to start have more compatibility across distributions.

> Sometimes you can get away with using "ancient" libraries for your new
> apps, but often you can't and so without "backport" the new apps will be
> broken for older archs.
> 
> >  I built
> > a more recent version of gd
> 
> Well, here you go again ;-) "Support for GIF was restored in gd 2.0.28
> on July 21st, 2004.". We'd like that please....

Gosh, (re)building it right away ;)

> > Sorry for breaking biorpms :(
> 
> Well, it's basically my own fault - as I'm too lazy to cover the entire
> dependency gap between redhat's releases and my apps, I am vulnerable to
> such package retirements by you, or Dag, or Matthias, or Rex, or ....
> 

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20040723/2085c4ad/attachment.bin