Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Packaging (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-packaging/)
-   -   Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-packaging/670044-moving-existing-rpmfusion-package-into-fedora.html)

Brendan Jones 05-23-2012 12:59 PM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
Hi all,

I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving
a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion
for some time.


The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer),
software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time
flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using
audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we
rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict:
with Fedora's qtractor.


The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version
silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.


One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename
the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use
alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts


Is this reasonable?

regards,

Brendan

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Michael Schwendt 05-23-2012 02:44 PM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving
> a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion
> for some time.
>
> The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer),
> software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
> Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time
> flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using
> audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we
> rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict:
> with Fedora's qtractor.

That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree
and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that
they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.

> The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version
> silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.

True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld
could "Obsoletes: qtractor < 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor
would be published.

> One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename
> the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use
> alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts
>
> Is this reasonable?

Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install qtractor"
with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search qtractor",
but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it
(independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.6-3.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.16 0.17 0.11
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Brendan Jones 05-23-2012 09:42 PM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On 05/23/2012 04:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:


Hi all,

I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving
a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion
for some time.

The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer),
software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time
flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using
audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we
rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict:
with Fedora's qtractor.


That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree
and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that
they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.


Unfortunately quite the opposite, there's a fair bit of resistance - the
package has passed review and I've since unpushed an update while we
work this out.


By the same token I can understand where they're coming from - when (or
if - I'm still not convinced) the bug reports come in they will have to
deal with it in the first instance. The maintainer in rpmfusion has
indicated he was looking to give it up, so I'll fire this scenario (with
me maintaining in both repos back at them).





The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version
silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.


True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld
could "Obsoletes: qtractor< 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor
would be published.


One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename
the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use
alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts

Is this reasonable?


Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install qtractor"
with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search qtractor",
but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it
(independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Brendan Jones 05-24-2012 08:18 AM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On 05/23/2012 11:42 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:

On 05/23/2012 04:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:


Hi all,

I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving
a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion
for some time.

The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer),
software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time
flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using
audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we
rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict:
with Fedora's qtractor.


That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree
and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that
they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.


Unfortunately quite the opposite, there's a fair bit of resistance - the
package has passed review and I've since unpushed an update while we
work this out.

By the same token I can understand where they're coming from - when (or
if - I'm still not convinced) the bug reports come in they will have to
deal with it in the first instance. The maintainer in rpmfusion has
indicated he was looking to give it up, so I'll fire this scenario (with
me maintaining in both repos back at them).




The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version
silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.


True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld
could "Obsoletes: qtractor< 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor
would be published.


One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename
the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use
alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts

Is this reasonable?


Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install
qtractor"
with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search
qtractor",
but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it
(independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).



OK, I think I have a solution. We'll stick to the name qtractor in
Fedora, do the rename in RPMFusion but implement alternatives there.


To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog /
update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor
and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired.
Sound OK?

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Jonathan Dieter 05-24-2012 09:13 AM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
> To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog /
> update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor
> and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired.
> Sound OK?

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it,
I'd follow the following steps:

1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete
qtractor
2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora
3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets
pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from
qtractor-freeworld
4. Build qtractor in Fedora

The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get
qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left
in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).

Jonathan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Brendan Jones 05-24-2012 09:35 AM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On 05/24/2012 11:13 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:

To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog /
update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor
and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired.
Sound OK?


I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it,
I'd follow the following steps:

1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete
qtractor
2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora
3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets
pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from
qtractor-freeworld
4. Build qtractor in Fedora

The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get
qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left
in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).

Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the
qtractor-freeworld package right?
(btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the
update for the moment)


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Jonathan Dieter 05-24-2012 10:21 AM

Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora
 
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:35 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 11:13 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
> >> To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog /
> >> update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor
> >> and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired.
> >> Sound OK?
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it,
> > I'd follow the following steps:
> >
> > 1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete
> > qtractor
> > 2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora
> > 3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets
> > pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from
> > qtractor-freeworld
> > 4. Build qtractor in Fedora
> >
> > The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get
> > qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left
> > in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).
> >
> Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the
> qtractor-freeworld package right?
> (btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the
> update for the moment)

I'm afraid I know very little about alternatives, so I'm not in the
position to give advice. If I understand what Nicolas is saying,
alternatives make more sense than having two versions that conflict.

Jonathan
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.