FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-18-2011, 09:58 AM
Ankur Sinha
 
Default Queries regarding packaging of static libraries

Hello,

I'm working on packaging required software to add to the fedora medical
initiative.

Of late, I've come across quite a few *tiny* libraries which are build
deps for the software. The issue with most of these are that they only
provide static libraries. These are generally libraries used by
universities in research.

I've already submitted two of them for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714327

and now, I've come across two more:

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/UFconfig/UFconfig-3.6.1.tar.gz
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/amd/AMD-2.2.2.tar.gz

All the software that require these maintain a bundled version. I wanted
to know if I need to package these, (without any shared libs), or should
I just let the bundled versions remain as internal libraries?

Someone at #fedora-devel suggested I patch the Makefiles to generate the
shared objects. I'm not sure if it's okay to provide shared objects
while upstream only provides static libs. This will also increase the
work required in packaging since all the Makefiles will need to be
heavily patched.

I'd like to know what the correct and efficient way to proceed here is.

Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-18-2011, 10:17 AM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default Queries regarding packaging of static libraries

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 03:28:01PM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on packaging required software to add to the fedora medical
> initiative.
>
> Of late, I've come across quite a few *tiny* libraries which are build
> deps for the software. The issue with most of these are that they only
> provide static libraries. These are generally libraries used by
> universities in research.
>
> I've already submitted two of them for review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714326
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714327
>
> and now, I've come across two more:
>
> http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/UFconfig/UFconfig-3.6.1.tar.gz
> http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/amd/AMD-2.2.2.tar.gz
>
> All the software that require these maintain a bundled version. I wanted
> to know if I need to package these, (without any shared libs), or should
> I just let the bundled versions remain as internal libraries?
>
> Someone at #fedora-devel suggested I patch the Makefiles to generate the
> shared objects. I'm not sure if it's okay to provide shared objects
> while upstream only provides static libs. This will also increase the
> work required in packaging since all the Makefiles will need to be
> heavily patched.
>
> I'd like to know what the correct and efficient way to proceed here is.

The correct way is to patch the Makefiles so they can build shared
libraries, to send those patches upstream, and to unbundle any bundled
libraries. It's quite a bit of work, but if upstream accept your
patches then hopefully it's only a one-off piece of work.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-18-2011, 10:24 AM
Ankur Sinha
 
Default Queries regarding packaging of static libraries

On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 11:17 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The correct way is to patch the Makefiles so they can build shared
> libraries, to send those patches upstream, and to unbundle any bundled
> libraries. It's quite a bit of work, but if upstream accept your
> patches then hopefully it's only a one-off piece of work.
>
> Rich.
>
>

Can I not just stick to this[1]. I don't think these libraries will be
used in any other packages. They're pretty old, if you look at the
links.

Thanks,
Ankur

[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-20-2011, 04:44 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Queries regarding packaging of static libraries

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 03:54:34PM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 11:17 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > The correct way is to patch the Makefiles so they can build shared
> > libraries, to send those patches upstream, and to unbundle any bundled
> > libraries. It's quite a bit of work, but if upstream accept your
> > patches then hopefully it's only a one-off piece of work.
> >
> > Rich.
> >
> >
>
> Can I not just stick to this[1]. I don't think these libraries will be
> used in any other packages. They're pretty old, if you look at the
> links.
>
> Thanks,
> Ankur
>
> [1]
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2

Yes, you can stick to that. To be clear:

You must unbundle.

You may try to get upstream to ship shared libraries or you may ship the
static libraries following those packaging guidelines.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org