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 05-05-2008, 08:52 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default MultilibTricks

I tried to use the approach outlined here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks

to make a package containing both some binaries and a library. The
binaries are linked against the library. The library provides
functionality used by other open source projects. However, as the
reviewer pointed out, the -libs subpackage described on that page
conflicts with the Packaging Guidelines. In particular, all
subpackages are supposed to Require the main package, but that gets
turned into all packages, including the main package, Require the
-libs subpackage. I thought about this approach.

foo: main package, contains the .so.* files
foo-devel: contains the .h and .so files
foo-bin: contains the binaries

The only downside I can see to that approach is that some people might
be confused when they install just foo and don't get the binaries.
How have others addressed this issue? Also, shoud I read anything
into the age of that packaging draft? Thanks,
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 08:59 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default MultilibTricks

Jerry James wrote:

I tried to use the approach outlined here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks

to make a package containing both some binaries and a library. The
binaries are linked against the library. The library provides
functionality used by other open source projects. However, as the
reviewer pointed out, the -libs subpackage described on that page
conflicts with the Packaging Guidelines. In particular, all
subpackages are supposed to Require the main package


AFAIk that is not what the guidelines say, and if they do say that then they
should be fixed, a foo-libs package does not need to Require the main package,
and I'm sure I can come up with more examples where a sub package does not need
to require the main package.


, but that gets

turned into all packages, including the main package, Require the
-libs subpackage. I thought about this approach.

foo: main package, contains the .so.* files
foo-devel: contains the .h and .so files
foo-bin: contains the binaries

The only downside I can see to that approach is that some people might
be confused when they install just foo and don't get the binaries.
How have others addressed this issue? Also, shoud I read anything
into the age of that packaging draft? Thanks,


Just use the -libs approach and don't make -libs Require the main package,
there is no need for it to require the main package.


Regards,

Hans

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 09:11 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
> Just use the -libs approach and don't make -libs Require the main package,
> there is no need for it to require the main package.

Active repository example: xmms
xmms package requires xmms-libs package
xmms-libs package does not require xmms package

both are packaged as part of the xmms srpm.

even better several other components require xmms-libs which dont require xmms.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 10:47 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:52:32PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I tried to use the approach outlined here:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks
[...]
> foo: main package, contains the .so.* files
> foo-devel: contains the .h and .so files
> foo-bin: contains the binaries

This is the review in question (which I did):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436033

I was largely unaware of the 'MultilibTricks' page when I did the
review, so I was going on what was in the main guidelines. Anyhow if
anyone has specific comments, please add them to this BZ. I was going
to approve the package right away, but instead I'm going to take a
good look at the link above tomorrow morning ...

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 11:02 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
> AFAIk that is not what the guidelines say, and if they do say that then
> they should be fixed, a foo-libs package does not need to Require the main
> package,

I found where the confusion is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:

SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.

Note its a should and not a must. I think a -libs subpackage is a
clear counter example that doesn't fall in the 'usual' wording. I
would daresay that usually, -libs subpackages don;t require the base
package.

Do we really need that SHOULD? Or do we need to expand on it a little?

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 04:24 AM
Tom Lane
 
Default MultilibTricks

"Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@gmail.com> writes:
> I found where the confusion is
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:

> SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency.

> Note its a should and not a must. I think a -libs subpackage is a
> clear counter example that doesn't fall in the 'usual' wording. I
> would daresay that usually, -libs subpackages don;t require the base
> package.

> Do we really need that SHOULD? Or do we need to expand on it a little?

Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you
bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines
are indisputably broken here.

See also this closely-related thread on fedora-packaging, which
I just started today:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-May/msg00002.html

regards, tom lane

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 07:43 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Tue, 06 May 2008 00:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I found where the confusion is
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:
>
> > SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> > package using a fully versioned dependency.
>
> > Note its a should and not a must. I think a -libs subpackage is a
> > clear counter example that doesn't fall in the 'usual' wording. I
> > would daresay that usually, -libs subpackages don;t require the base
> > package.
>
> > Do we really need that SHOULD? Or do we need to expand on it a little?
>
> Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
> it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you
> bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines
> are indisputably broken here.

The guidelines say SHOULD, not MUST. And I believe that guideline has
its origin in the "explicit %epoch era" and is a bit misleading nowadays.

The foo-libs case is special, because it simulates a stand-alone libfoo
package, which may be used by other programs/packages.

A missing dependency between a sub-package and the main package is one
source of packaging mistakes. The sub-package *is* optional, but programs
[tools, scripts or other files] from the main package often are needed at
run-time. This is something to check carefully. And it applies also to
add-on packages created from a separate src.rpm.

--
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8
loadavg: 1.02 1.13 0.73

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:24 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default MultilibTricks

Tom Lane wrote:


> Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
> it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you
> bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines
> are indisputably broken here.

-libs, even if Require'ing the base pkg, helps multilib-wise.

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:24:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> > Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
> > it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you
> > bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines
> > are indisputably broken here.
>
> -libs, even if Require'ing the base pkg, helps multilib-wise.

If -libs requires base pkg, there's no need to split the two.

And it cannot help multilib-wise, because the -devel => -libs => base pkg
chain is still intact.

--
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8
loadavg: 1.09 1.31 1.38

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:55 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default MultilibTricks

On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:46:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:24:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
> > > it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you
> > > bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines
> > > are indisputably broken here.
> >
> > -libs, even if Require'ing the base pkg, helps multilib-wise.
>
> If -libs requires base pkg, there's no need to split the two.
>
> And it cannot help multilib-wise, because the -devel => -libs => base pkg
> chain is still intact.

Unless RPM doesn't care about the arch of the base pkg... and takes
either one, ... oh well...

--
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 02:25 AM.

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