On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:14 PM Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 1:09 PM Fedora Rawhide Report > <rawh...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > ===== ADDED PACKAGES ===== > > Package: atkmm2.36-2.36.1-1.fc36 > > Summary: C++ interface for the ATK library > > RPMs: atkmm2.36 atkmm2.36-devel atkmm2.36-doc > > Size: 1.35 MiB > > (...) > > > Package: glibmm2.68-2.68.1-1.fc36 > > Summary: C++ interface for the GLib library > > RPMs: glibmm2.68 glibmm2.68-devel glibmm2.68-doc > > Size: 12.65 MiB > > > > Package: gtkmm4.0-4.4.0-1.fc36 > > Summary: C++ interface for the GTK+ library > > RPMs: gtkmm4.0 gtkmm4.0-devel gtkmm4.0-doc > > Size: 17.64 MiB > > > > Package: pangomm2.48-2.48.1-1.fc36 > > Summary: C++ interface for Pango > > RPMs: pangomm2.48 pangomm2.48-devel pangomm2.48-doc > > Size: 1.26 MiB > > Is there a reason why these compat packages are done "the wrong way round"? > They were requested with exceptions to the review process, but that > exception only applies to requesting versioned compat packages for the > *old* version, not the other way round ... > Sure, there's a good reason! I wanted to keep the same pattern as gtk has, so that there's gtk3 and matching gtkmm3.0, and gtk4 and matching gtkmm4.0. They are all long-lived parallel installable packages and most stuff is going to be using the "old" gtkmm3.0 still for a number of years to come. Doing it this way also makes it much easier to add the new packages to F34 where I don't want to be undertaking large package renaming. -- Kalev
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure