-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/17/2010 09:04 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there any good way how to handle the situation described at
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524
>
> ?
>
> I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled
> with or without GUI support (with different ABI) -- and we'd like to
> have both of them, of course -- the non-GUI version on headless servers,
> the GUI one for desktop.
>
> As far "yelling at upstream" sounds like the most correct way.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice,
> Milos

This is not a properly-built library. You can't have the same SONAME and
different ABI. That's the entire point of a SONAME. The proper way would
be to build the library always with GUI support and then not USE the GUI
portions of the ABI unless you need to.

If they also have different API, I strongly recommend yelling at upstream.

- --
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktUUUYACgkQeiVVYja6o6MZMwCfZuVWm6b/KUZt+kFM8UZvDnEa
bkgAoJdVOilpn5Wr+H+iX0yh8QJvuqhf
=9wvy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 18.1.2010 13:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/17/2010 09:04 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> is there any good way how to handle the situation described at
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled
>> with or without GUI support (with different ABI) -- and we'd like to
>> have both of them, of course -- the non-GUI version on headless servers,
>> the GUI one for desktop.
>>
>> As far "yelling at upstream" sounds like the most correct way.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any advice,
>> Milos
>
> This is not a properly-built library. You can't have the same SONAME and
> different ABI. That's the entire point of a SONAME.

I know.

The proper way would
> be to build the library always with GUI support and then not USE the GUI
> portions of the ABI unless you need to.

This is currently the case -- the library is of course built with GUI
support, but that means that the package depends on whole a lot of stuff
ending with X11 libraries which is not desirable on a headless server.

I was thinking about whether there would be a more or less correct way
to build the libraray twice (with and without GUI) into two subpackages
with mutual Provides/Obsoletes (allowing to install the non-GUI version
by default and possibly substitute with the GUI one on demand). But this
stinks indeed (not only because of the sonames)...and one would have to
ensure that all the dependencies will behave good.

I was just curious whether there are not another packages with similar
problems and possible solutions to look at in Fedora.

Regards,
Milos
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Hello Milos,

Monday, January 18, 2010, 2:27:22 PM, you wrote:
> is there any good way how to handle the situation described at
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524
>
> ?
>
> I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled
> with or without GUI support (with different ABI) -- and we'd like to
> have both of them, of course -- the non-GUI version on headless servers,
> the GUI one for desktop.
>
> As far "yelling at upstream" sounds like the most correct way.

I'd suggest that the proper solution would be to separate the GUI
functions into a separate library with a separate-but-related soname,
and have that library depend on the non-GUI library.

That way the final GUI tools would depend on both libraries, and the
equivalent command line tools only on the non-GUI library.

If possible, common functions should use shared code hosted in the non-GUI
library. Otherwise you could get different results from the slightly
different code in the two libraries. These lead to "it works if I do it by
A1, but fails with A2" bug reports.

>From this user's POW, it gets more insane if A1 and A2 are the same tool
that supports running in GUI and command line modes.

Al


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel