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 05-01-2008, 01:13 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:41 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 14:22 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > You'll note the default behavior in F9 is not install any i386 pkgs
> > unless explicitly asked for (or as a dependency).
> >
> > If you want to have dependencies have arch-specific information in
> > them then, again, we need to talk about that at the rpm layer.
>
> I believe this has already been implemented in RPM.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235755
> http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=48ff62a5291458ed1181cd6c 31dcadb193ad2f8e
>

But not in one that's in fedora, yet.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:16 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

Paul Howarth wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:

Paul Howarth wrote:
> I think we are all actually in violent agreement here, it's just
that some proprietary vendors seem to go out of their way to defeat
the dependency mechanisms that would help tools like yum install
their software.


Have you looked at what packages have to include to install on more
than one linux distro/version? And fedora is the worst of the bunch
in terms of not being compatible with last week's version of itself.
Give the 3rd party packagers a target before you complain about them
missing it.


As Kevin mentioned earlier in this thread, the soname dependencies that
RPM adds automatically are *real* dependencies and I'm not aware of any
RPM-based distribution that doesn't use them. So what's the point of
stripping them out?


Stripping of pathname-based and package-name based dependencies I can
understand, but not the library deps.


Are they the same across all RPM based systems?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:22 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Stripping of pathname-based and package-name based dependencies I can
> > understand, but not the library deps.
>
> Are they the same across all RPM based systems?
>

The library deps sorta have to be. The deps come out of what the program
is linked to.

as an example run:
ldd /usr/bin/xterm

and look at what it outputs

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:37 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:52:13AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
>> > I think we are all actually in violent agreement here, it's just that
>> some proprietary vendors seem to go out of their way to defeat the
>> dependency mechanisms that would help tools like yum install their
>> software.
>
> Have you looked at what packages have to include to install on more than
> one linux distro/version? And fedora is the worst of the bunch in terms of
> not being compatible with last week's version of itself. Give the 3rd
> party packagers a target before you complain about them missing it.

It is not fedora as such. The change in ABI (binary interfaces) or API
comes from upstream. And since fedora follows upstream, ABI break when there
is an upstream release breaking ABI. Some projects take care of ABI stability
(glibc, gnome, netcdf) other don't (openssl, libdap). Also it may happen that
ABI breaks when compiler change and also kernel compatibilities change.
And fedora also follow upstream in that. There could be policies to avoid
breaking ABI within a fedora release, but so far there is no consensus on
that subject and it is left to the packager.

RHEL tries to keep ABI stable during the whole distro lifetime.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:45 PM
Warren Togami
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

Callum Lerwick wrote:


Well what should happen is flash is pulled from Adobe's own repo, and
since they're pulling from a repo anyway, yum should do what its
designed to do and pull in all the i386 deps flash needs in the same
transaction. There's no need for it to be in the default install or on
the install media, as far as flash is concerned.



I was not even referring to Flash this time. An even larger problem
from stripping i386 from a x86_64 default install is you don't get i386
Input Method support. A great many 32bit software stops working
properly, the user has no idea why, and there is no simple yum
groupinstall command capable of fixing this.


Your naive suggestion fails in this case, because there is no way you
will get all of that 3rd party software to have deps on all possible
language packages.


Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:49 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

Les Mikesell wrote:

Paul Howarth wrote:


Stripping of pathname-based and package-name based dependencies I can
understand, but not the library deps.


Are they the same across all RPM based systems?


Yes, they are and the third party packages have no excuse if they are
deliberately disabling the automatic dependency mechanisms.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:54 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

seth vidal wrote:

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Stripping of pathname-based and package-name based dependencies I can
understand, but not the library deps.

Are they the same across all RPM based systems?



The library deps sorta have to be. The deps come out of what the program
is linked to.

as an example run:
ldd /usr/bin/xterm

and look at what it outputs



VMWare-server should probably be split into two packages. Only the
console portion needs the X libs and you can run it on a different
machine, a different OS, or not at all, so it wouldn't make much sense
for a run-time dependency for that part to prevent installation of the
rest of the server.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:58 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>> Stripping of pathname-based and package-name based dependencies I can
> >>> understand, but not the library deps.
> >> Are they the same across all RPM based systems?
> >>
> >
> > The library deps sorta have to be. The deps come out of what the program
> > is linked to.
> >
> > as an example run:
> > ldd /usr/bin/xterm
> >
> > and look at what it outputs
> >
>
> VMWare-server should probably be split into two packages. Only the
> console portion needs the X libs and you can run it on a different
> machine, a different OS, or not at all, so it wouldn't make much sense
> for a run-time dependency for that part to prevent installation of the
> rest of the server.

umm, okay. But no one here controls the vmware package. Hell, speaking
for just me, I don't even CARE about vmware.

So, if you really think the above should happen, tell vmware.
-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:13 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

Les Mikesell wrote:

> Andrew Farris wrote:
>>
>> No, it doesn't, which is exactly my point... the harder, or more
>> explicitly, anything must be done to distribute proprietary software...
>> the more likely it will be done with a shell script which spews files
>> all over the place.
>>
>> You don't get proprietary software to work nicely with package
>> management systems by making it even harder.
>
> Would you mind leaving the 'p' word out of this discussion?

Maybe, maybe not. 'p' to some means anything != free/oss. And if it's
free/oss, what better place than to be *in* fedora.

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:17 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Multilib Middle-Ground

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 09:13:11AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Maybe, maybe not. 'p' to some means anything != free/oss. And if it's
> free/oss, what better place than to be *in* fedora.

Not necessarily, all codes are not meant to be released, or, even if
released are not necessarily meant to be packaged, even if they
are free software. One example for this case is numerical models.

--
Pat

--
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 08:42 AM.

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