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 06-30-2010, 05:14 PM
Michael Thomas
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On 06/30/2010 10:09 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There are dozens of -devel packages, which contain static libs only,
> but don't provide a virtual -static package.
>
> Many of them are OCaml (ocaml-*) and Haskell (ghc-*) packages.
>
> The Haskell packaging guidelines contain a section that seems to suggest
> that the packages need not provide a virtual -static package:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Static_vs._Dynamic_Linking
>
> What about OCaml?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
> is not mentioning static libraries at all.
>
> What other exceptions exist?

Tcl allows static 'stub' libraries in the -devel subpackage. See the
last paragraph here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Tcl

--Wart
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 06-30-2010, 05:26 PM
Mamoru Tasaka
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

Michael Schwendt wrote, at 07/01/2010 02:09 AM +9:00:
> There are dozens of -devel packages, which contain static libs only,
> but don't provide a virtual -static package.
>
> What about OCaml?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
> is not mentioning static libraries at all.

I am not familiar with OCaml but the above guideline says that
"OCaml does not support dynamic linking of binaries".

Regards,
Mamoru
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 06-30-2010, 05:37 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:14:39 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Tcl allows static 'stub' libraries in the -devel subpackage. See the
> last paragraph here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Tcl

That removes tcl-tclxml and tkimg, albeit on the assumption that
a package with "tk" at the beginning of its name and "stub" in its
static library names, is a Tk package.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 06-30-2010, 05:37 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:26:52 +0900, Mamoru wrote:

> > There are dozens of -devel packages, which contain static libs only,
> > but don't provide a virtual -static package.
> >
> > What about OCaml?
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
> > is not mentioning static libraries at all.
>
> I am not familiar with OCaml but the above guideline says that
> "OCaml does not support dynamic linking of binaries".

Okay. Hopefully all of them are in the "ocaml-" namespace. I've extended
the package name check to look for "ocaml-" also in the middle of package
names, and that has closed two tickets.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 06-30-2010, 06:01 PM
Michael Thomas
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On 06/30/2010 10:37 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:14:39 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Tcl allows static 'stub' libraries in the -devel subpackage. See the
>> last paragraph here:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Tcl
>
> That removes tcl-tclxml and tkimg, albeit on the assumption that
> a package with "tk" at the beginning of its name and "stub" in its
> static library names, is a Tk package.

It also removes tdom, memchan, and itcl, which were never converted to
the proper Tcl package naming guidelines.

--Wart
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 06-30-2010, 06:29 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:01:06 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:

> On 06/30/2010 10:37 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:14:39 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> Tcl allows static 'stub' libraries in the -devel subpackage. See the
> >> last paragraph here:
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Tcl
> >
> > That removes tcl-tclxml and tkimg, albeit on the assumption that
> > a package with "tk" at the beginning of its name and "stub" in its
> > static library names, is a Tk package.
>
> It also removes tdom, memchan, and itcl, which were never converted to
> the proper Tcl package naming guidelines.

Urks. Got them. Looking for /tcl in the library path should be safe.
tdom, on the other hand, resides in %_libdir, so currently I'm ignoring it
based on its tiny file size plus "stub" in its name.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 07-06-2010, 09:23 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:53:45 +0100, Richard wrote:

> > What about OCaml?
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
> > is not mentioning static libraries at all.
>
> The *.a files in ocaml-*-devel aren't C code at all.

What has talked about C code?

> They contain machine code compiled from OCaml sources.

*confused* Then there is no difference compared with libs compiled
from C (or C++ or other programming languages, which are compiled into
native code). So, why do you mention C?

> This is mentioned specifically in the guidelines above so I don't
> see how it's a problem.

The Wiki page about OCaml,

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml

does not mention "static" libraries at all. Hence there must some sort
of implicit exception with regard to the packaging guidelines.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 07-06-2010, 01:58 PM
Garrett Holmstrom
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The Wiki page about OCaml,
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
>
> does not mention "static" libraries at all. Hence there must some sort
> of implicit exception with regard to the packaging guidelines.

In case no one has noticed yet, OCaml programs have an explicit
exception to the static linkage guideline with regard to linking against
(only) OCaml libraries.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Programs_which_don.27t_need_to_notify_F ESCo
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 07-06-2010, 02:26 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:58:13 -0500, Garrett wrote:

> > The Wiki page about OCaml,
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
> >
> > does not mention "static" libraries at all. Hence there must some sort
> > of implicit exception with regard to the packaging guidelines.
>
> In case no one has noticed yet, OCaml programs have an explicit
> exception to the static linkage guideline with regard to linking against
> (only) OCaml libraries.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Programs_which_don.27t_need_to_notify_F ESCo
>

It's sort of misplaced or "well hidden".

It is an exception to the "Staticly Linking Executables" guidelines,
not to the "Packaging Static Libraries" guidelines. The former is about
linking with .a files, the latter is about -static subpackages. Not having
to notify FESCo related to linking with .a files sort of seems to imply that
it isn't necessary to create -static subpackages. Hey! ;-)
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 07-06-2010, 03:58 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:22:50 +0100, Richard wrote:

> Maybe we can take a step back here and ask: why is this such a
> problem?

With "this" == what?

I've asked about exceptions to the static library packaging guidelines.
This has lead to helpful replies, such as those about Tcl/Tk stub libs.
The bz tickets filed about those packages have been closed automatically.

> The guidelines are quite moderate in their tone. They say:
>
> "Packages including libraries should exclude static libs as far as
> possible (eg by configuring with --disable-static). Static libraries
> should only be included in exceptional circumstances. Applications
> linking against libraries should as far as possible link against
> shared libraries not static versions. [...] In general, packagers are
> strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason
> exists."
>
> However the tone of this thread is extreme.

Ah, come on! It isn't extreme just because you call it extreme. :-(
Can you quote a piece you consider "extreme"?

> Any *.a file must
> apparently never appear anywhere outside a *-static package, no matter
> what, even if it's been like this forever (eg. libgcc.a, libiberty,
> etc) or even if it's not causing a problem for anyone (OCaml code).

Well, if we have guidelines _and_ exceptions to them, we [=> FESCo or
the packaging committee] should choose between either one for every package
in the collection. And honestly, I don't understand yet what "problem"
you refer to.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 AM.

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