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 Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-09-2010, 03:01 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:

> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040
> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.

Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close
something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.

"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek
added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

Wrong. Certainly binutils-devel could split off its static libraries into
a binutils-static package, so anything other than itself must follow
the guidelines and "BuildRequires: binutils-static".

$ repoquery --whatrequires libbfd-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.so
binutils-0:2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.i686
$ repoquery --whatrequires libopcodes-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.so
binutils-0:2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.i686
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-09-2010, 03:11 PM
Milos Jakubicek
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
>
>> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040
>> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
>
> Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close
> something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
>
> "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek
> added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

Indeed, surprising

I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).

Milos
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On 02/09/2010 05:11 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
> On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
>>
>>> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040
>>> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
>>
>> Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close
>> something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
>>
>> "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek
>> added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

If there is something which doesn't make sense, then it's their rationale:

* They already ships shared libs.

* Unless packages already apply special preparations for static linkage
against binutils' libraries, these package already will be dynamically
linked against binutils' libraries.
=> In most cases, ABI breakages will already happen, whether or not they
ship their libs in monolytic or static packaging.

* The number of users of binutils' libraries is very small (I would
guess << 10). So, should a static/devel spilt have any impact at all,
then the impact would a one time change to very few packages.

> Indeed, surprising

Really? I can't find anything surprising in this response at all.

It's a feature: "experience the contact with RH devs" used to be
advertised as part of the "Great Fedora experience"

Ralf

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.

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