FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-22-2008, 02:05 AM
Wart
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

In an earlier F-? release, I had added a cyphesis-selinux subpackage
which added selinux protection to the cyphesis game server. This policy
has now been added to the selinux-policy-targeted package, and I need to
have cyphesis-selinux removed. There are two places where this can be
done safely, afaik:

(a) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the cyphesis base package
(b) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the selinux-policy-targeted
package

I'm tempted to go with (a) because it keeps us from having to add many
Obsoletes: tags to the selinux policy packages as the -selinux
subpackage get merged in.

Is (a) an acceptable solution?

--Wart

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 07:32 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 07:05:54PM -0700, Wart wrote:
> In an earlier F-? release, I had added a cyphesis-selinux subpackage
> which added selinux protection to the cyphesis game server. This policy
> has now been added to the selinux-policy-targeted package, and I need to
> have cyphesis-selinux removed. There are two places where this can be
> done safely, afaik:
>
> (a) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the cyphesis base package
> (b) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the selinux-policy-targeted
> package

I think that (b) is more logical since the functionality is there now.

> Is (a) an acceptable solution?

I think so.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 09:27 AM
Paul Howarth
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 07:05:54PM -0700, Wart wrote:

In an earlier F-? release, I had added a cyphesis-selinux subpackage
which added selinux protection to the cyphesis game server. This policy
has now been added to the selinux-policy-targeted package, and I need to
have cyphesis-selinux removed. There are two places where this can be
done safely, afaik:

(a) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the cyphesis base package
(b) Add 'Obsoletes: cyphesis-selinux' to the selinux-policy-targeted
package


I think that (b) is more logical since the functionality is there now.


I agree.


Is (a) an acceptable solution?


I think so.


I think so too but it might be worth adding:

Conflicts: selinux-policy < first-VR-including-cyphesis-policy

at least for one or two releases.

Paul.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 09:56 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:27:19AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
>>> Is (a) an acceptable solution?
>>
>> I think so.
>
> I think so too but it might be worth adding:
>
> Conflicts: selinux-policy < first-VR-including-cyphesis-policy

I am not sure that it is really needed. Better have the obsolete in
selinux-policy and a corresponding provides in that case.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-04-2008, 09:36 PM
Michael Thomas
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:27:19AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:

Is (a) an acceptable solution?

I think so.

I think so too but it might be worth adding:

Conflicts: selinux-policy < first-VR-including-cyphesis-policy


I am not sure that it is really needed. Better have the obsolete in
selinux-policy and a corresponding provides in that case.


Why would the Provides: be necessary? The Obsoletes: should make sure
that the cyphesis-selinux package gets removed, and later attempts to
install/upgrade the no-longer-valid cyphesis-selinux package should fail.


--Wart

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-04-2008, 09:44 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:36:30PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Why would the Provides: be necessary? The Obsoletes: should make sure
> that the cyphesis-selinux package gets removed, and later attempts to
> install/upgrade the no-longer-valid cyphesis-selinux package should fail.

If you prefer.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 03:16 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Thursday 05 June 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Why would the Provides: be necessary? The Obsoletes: should make sure
> that the cyphesis-selinux package gets removed, and later attempts to
> install/upgrade the no-longer-valid cyphesis-selinux package should fail.

That would break scripts etc that assume the cyphesis-selinux package is still
available (either as a real package, or a Provides somewhere else). Why
would it be a good thing to intentionally cause this breakage?

We have documented procedures how to handle case like this, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_pac kages

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 03:22 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:47PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
> That would break scripts etc that assume the cyphesis-selinux package is still
> available (either as a real package, or a Provides somewhere else). Why
> would it be a good thing to intentionally cause this breakage?

It seems to me that in some case (and here it could be such a case) it
is acceptable not to be backward compatible, here in order to have the
stand-alone cyphesis-selinux package completly disappear, and avoid
inflating the number of provides.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 06:09 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default obsoleting -selinux subpackages

On Thursday 05 June 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:47PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > That would break scripts etc that assume the cyphesis-selinux package is
> > still available (either as a real package, or a Provides somewhere else).
> > Why would it be a good thing to intentionally cause this breakage?
>
> It seems to me that in some case (and here it could be such a case) it
> is acceptable not to be backward compatible, here in order to have the
> stand-alone cyphesis-selinux package completly disappear,

Which is taken care with Obsoletes.

> and avoid inflating the number of provides.

That's completely moot in the context of avoiding breakage. There's a very
real, valid reason why the guideline for renaming/replacing packages exists
and should be followed.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org