[aur-requests] [PRQ#3918] Merge Request for libtiff4
toost.b at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 13:03:25 UTC 2015
On 21 August 2015 at 12:20, Sam S. <smls75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As the current maintainer of both packages, I'm not convinced that
> merging them is a good idea. Having them separate, makes it easier for
> people to specify what soname exactly they need without having to
> worry about implementation details like which is a symlink etc.
> In an ideal world it could be a single package that
> provides=(libtiff3 libtiff4) so that other packages could continue
> to list either of them in their 'depends' array. But afaik, the AUR
> API and AUR helpers don't support that.
> On the other hand, Doug's suggestion does make sense to me:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Doug Newgard <scimmia at archlinux.info>
> > Make
> > libtiff3 the main package (since that's the upstream soname), then make a
> > separate libtiff4 package that just has the symlinks and nothing else.
> > a lot of other simplification I would do, as well, but it should work
> I'll await the outcome of this merge request; if they stay separate
> I'll probably go ahead and do that.
> Also, can you elaborate on those other simplifications? (Maybe on the
> package comment page rather than here.)
That's a decent point. As a maintainter I'd rather still maintain a single
package though. Maybe it'd be an idea to use a single pkgbase for both
packages? I'm pretty sure that would allow other packages to name that as
dependency, though I don't know if the current packages are easily
But yeah, making libtiff3 the main package would be the least I'd do,
especially because it makes more sense as a dependency circle (version 4
relying on version 3 rather than version 3 relying on 4, which looks like
an old version relying on a new one).
We apologize for the inconvenience"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-requests