FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

» Linux Archive
Home
New Posts
Search
FAQ


Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-06-2010, 01:58 PM
Adam Miller
 
Default Recommendations on how to handle this package and its libraries

I'm currently packaging lessfs and there are apparently a couple
libraries that are a part of it that have become a cause for concern
by the reviewer (rightfully so) and I'm hoping someone could offer a
recommendation of how to go about packaging them.

Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530473
Latest spec (not yet submitted to the review):
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs.spec
Latest SRPM (not yet submitted to the review):
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm

There is one library that will have to be a separate package, QuickLZ
which I plan to package up and put in for review but there are many
other lib_$foo.c files that belong to lessfs and are original work by
the author.

Upstream has been extremely responsive and very helpful through out
this process and is willing to work along with me to get some changes
into the upstream release but I'm just trying to find the best
solution.

Here is where the recommendations would be helpful:

Should I package the source and not worry about packaging the libraries?
Should the libraries be in their own sub package?
Should each library be their own package?
or $other?


Many thanks to all,
-AdamM


--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-08-2010, 03:02 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Recommendations on how to handle this package and its libraries

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 08:58:08AM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> I'm currently packaging lessfs and there are apparently a couple
> libraries that are a part of it that have become a cause for concern
> by the reviewer (rightfully so) and I'm hoping someone could offer a
> recommendation of how to go about packaging them.
>
> Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530473
> Latest spec (not yet submitted to the review):
> http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs.spec
> Latest SRPM (not yet submitted to the review):
> http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/lessfs-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
>
> There is one library that will have to be a separate package, QuickLZ
> which I plan to package up and put in for review but there are many
> other lib_$foo.c files that belong to lessfs and are original work by
> the author.
>
> Upstream has been extremely responsive and very helpful through out
> this process and is willing to work along with me to get some changes
> into the upstream release but I'm just trying to find the best
> solution.
>
> Here is where the recommendations would be helpful:
>
> Should I package the source and not worry about packaging the libraries?
> Should the libraries be in their own sub package?
> Should each library be their own package?
> or $other?
>
>
* As long as the tarball is the canonical source for all of the libraries (ie,
it's a case of lessfs's author also writing these libraries and releasing
all of them as a single tarball) they can be in a single srpm.
* It's best to separate libraries from programs in separate subpackages.
* Whether to have a single or multiple subpackages for the libraries depends
on the libraries. Things that affect this are size of the libraries,
whether programs will generally need all of the libraries or only some of
them, and the dep chainof the libraries (ie: if libfoo-one requires libgtk
and libfoo-two requires libqt they should be put into separate
subpackages).

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org