Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Packaging (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-packaging/)
-   -   Static Library Policy Draft Changes (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-packaging/66489-static-library-policy-draft-changes.html)

"Tom "spot" Callaway" 04-08-2008 09:51 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:

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

I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
static libraries.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Orion Poplawski 04-08-2008 10:05 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:

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

I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
static libraries.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging


I can live with it (and I deal with a lot of static libraries...)

- Orion

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Toshio Kuratomi 04-08-2008 10:51 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:

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

I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
static libraries.


From item #2:
"""
If the *-static-noshared package is no longer necessary, it should be
removed, and Provided/Obsoleted by the *-devel package (not by the
*-static package).

"""

I don't think we want to be Providing *-static-noshared in this case
although the Obsolete makes sense.


From item #3:
"""
When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the
static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also
have to have a virtual Provide for the *-static and *-static-noshared
packages:

"""

It seems like we should only have a Provide for *-static-noshared as
this is a special case of item #2. Thoughts on that?


-Toshio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Ralf Corsepius 04-08-2008 10:59 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:51 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
-1

I don't understand the difference between #2 and #3.

Also I don't find the *-nonshared packages useful.


Ralf



--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Brian Pepple 04-08-2008 11:55 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:51 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
>
> I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
> bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
> static libraries.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

04-09-2008 02:28 AM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
>
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:51 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
> -1
>
> I don't understand the difference between #2 and #3.
>
> Also I don't find the *-nonshared packages useful.
>

I assume the point would be to ban BR: *-static in Fedora packages, but
allow BR: *-nonshared - i.e. when there is no alternative. Is that
correct?

- orion

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Bill Nottingham 04-09-2008 03:12 AM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
> As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
>
> I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
> bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
> static libraries.

I'd rather just require them to be in -static instead of -static-noshared
- they can still be tracked that way.

Bill

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Jesse Keating 04-09-2008 11:37 AM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 23:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I'd rather just require them to be in -static instead of -static-noshared
> - they can still be tracked that way.

The problem (as described to me) is that if you put them in -static, and
you BR -static, you then potentially link against /all/ the static
libraries, even those that have shared alternatives. The motivation was
to isolate the static libraries which have no shared alternative from
those that do.

We can still "track" things which BR -static-noshared just as easily as
we can track those that BR -static.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Jesse Keating 04-09-2008 11:42 AM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 00:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I don't understand the difference between #2 and #3.

It's a subtle distinction.

In 2, you have some static libraries and some shared libraries, but the
static librar{y,ies} don't have shared alternatives. We don't want to
stuff the static ones into the -devel package as we then lose the
ability to track what packages statically link against said library, and
we don't want to put them in -static as we then run the risk of
statically linking to /all/ the static libraries, even those that have
shared alternatives. In 3, there is /only/ static libraries, which if
we were to try splitting out the static libraries you'd wind up with an
empty -devel subpackage. That's why it's OK then to put the static
libraries directly in the -devel subpackage, but still packages which
link to those static BR the -static provides.

Nonshared subpackage is needed to isolate the static with no alternative
libraries from the static with alternative libraries. This way you
don't run the risk of statically linking to /all/ the static libraries,
even those that have shared alternatives.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Hans de Goede 04-09-2008 12:17 PM

Static Library Policy Draft Changes
 
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
From item #3:
"""
When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the
static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also
have to have a virtual Provide for the *-static and *-static-noshared
packages:

"""

It seems like we should only have a Provide for *-static-noshared as
this is a special case of item #2. Thoughts on that?




I actually think we only should have a Provide for *-static, so that people who
want to use static libs now and in the future (when there may be a shared
version) , can guarantee they will get the static version by BuildRequiring the
-static, since very few packages will ever have a real *-static-noshared,
having a virtual provides for this feels wrong.


Regards,

Hans

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.