On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM Marek Blaha <mblaha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 1:23 PM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It looks you are rebasing sdbus-cpp.
> >
> > Then either bundle the old library into the rebased package at build time.
> > I.e. in sdbus-cpp.spec do:
> >
> > BuildRequires: sdbus-cpp
> > install %{_libdir}/libsdbus-c++.so.1.so %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
> >
> > Or create a new compatibility sdbus-cpp1 package by copying it from the old
> > sdbus-cpp.spec and then rebase sdbus-cpp. Compatibility packages are exempt
> > from package reviews.
> >
> > That latter approach is better if you expect that porting dependent packages
> > will take nontrivial time.
>
> To be honest, I'm not too enthusiastic about introducing (and
> maintaining) a compatibility package solely to work around a build
> system limitation. DNF5 is already compatible with libsdbus-cpp-2; the
> only obstacle is presence of dnf5 in the buildroot which blocks
> sdbus-cpp-2 installation.
>
> As for other dependencies, the only remaining package using sdbus-cpp
> is xdg-desktop-portal-hyprland, and there’s already a PR open for
> porting it to version 2.
Then the option of temporarily shipping the v1 library in the v2
package, building dnf5, and then doing an un-bootstrap build of v2
without v1 sounds like a good solution. To my knowledge, this is how
incompatible updates for other libraries that are part of the default
buildroot are handled too,
Fabio
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
