Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:


Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.


Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.

-- Rex

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

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:

>> > unflattened != multiarch
>> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
>> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
>>
>> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
>> incompatible with gnustep-base?
>
> While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
> different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
> supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
> specific libcombos to be built against.
>
>> Anyway, here's an idea:
>> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
>
> Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
> gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
> which we must truncate back).

So:
- binaries can be flattened
- library structure can be simplified:
currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
(remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)

or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?

If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.

--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/

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

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:

>> > unflattened != multiarch
>> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
>> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
>>
>> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
>> incompatible with gnustep-base?
>
> While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
> different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
> supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
> specific libcombos to be built against.
>
>> Anyway, here's an idea:
>> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
>
> Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
> gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
> which we must truncate back).

So:
- binaries can be flattened
- library structure can be simplified:
currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
(remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)

or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?

If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.

--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/

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

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 05:39:37PM -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:
>
> >> > unflattened != multiarch
> >> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
> >> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
> >>
> >> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
> >> incompatible with gnustep-base?
> >
> > While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
> > different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
> > supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
> > specific libcombos to be built against.
> >
> >> Anyway, here's an idea:
> >> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
> >
> > Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
> > gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
> > which we must truncate back).
>
> So:
> - binaries can be flattened
> - library structure can be simplified:
> currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
> proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
> (remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
> installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)
>
> or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?
>
> If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
> linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.

Just replace gnu-gnu-gnu with gnu-fd-gnu or gnu-fd-nil. The layout is
given by gnustep-make for all consumers independent of the combo.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 05:39:37PM -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:
>
> >> > unflattened != multiarch
> >> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
> >> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
> >>
> >> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
> >> incompatible with gnustep-base?
> >
> > While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
> > different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
> > supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
> > specific libcombos to be built against.
> >
> >> Anyway, here's an idea:
> >> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
> >
> > Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
> > gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
> > which we must truncate back).
>
> So:
> - binaries can be flattened
> - library structure can be simplified:
> currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
> proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
> (remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
> installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)
>
> or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?
>
> If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
> linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.

Just replace gnu-gnu-gnu with gnu-fd-gnu or gnu-fd-nil. The layout is
given by gnustep-make for all consumers independent of the combo.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> >Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.
>
> Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.

Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

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

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:


Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.

Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.


Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.


OK, depends on your definition of mixing. I thought you meant
parallel-installable. And yes, they are afaik, ABI-incompatible with
different sonames.


-- Rex

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

On Monday, 25 August 2008 at 17:53, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.
> >>Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.
> >
> >Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.
>
> OK, depends on your definition of mixing. I thought you meant
> parallel-installable. And yes, they are afaik, ABI-incompatible with
> different sonames.

Hm, I was under the impression that they had the same sonames, but
I may have been wrong.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

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

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> Hm, I was under the impression that they had the same sonames, but
> I may have been wrong.

The openmotif and lesstif soname have the same base name but different
numbers. lesstif is like libXm.so.2 and openmotif libXm.so.3. This is
asking for future trouble, though appplications can have
Requires: lesstif
when they have been built with lesstif to mitigate the issue.

I am not exaclty sure what would be the right way in that case, though,
so I have postponed looking more at that issue.

--
Pat

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