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 08-08-2012, 04:16 AM
Ankur Sinha
 
Default Is this a bug or not?

Hi folks,

I always thought that headers go into %{_includedir}. Can someone please
clarify if this is really a bug or not?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301


--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur: "FranciscoD"

Please only print if necessary.

Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:53 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Is this a bug or not?

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:16:54 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I always thought that headers go into %{_includedir}. Can someone please
> clarify if this is really a bug or not?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301

It's a bug in the same way it would be a bug if the headers were stored
below %_bindir, %_mandir, %_sysconfdir or dirs other than %_includedir.

It may be worth a shot to contact libffi upstream about that unless
it's just the Fedora package that uses %_libdir for the headers.

[The comment about pkg-config --cflags is ridiculous. Sure, that command
can be used to retrieve the include path options, and without pkg-config
it would be difficult to _guess_ the versioned subdir, but nevertheless
headers don't belong into %_libdir.]

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.14 0.29 0.21
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:09 AM
Remi Collet
 
Default Is this a bug or not?

Le 08/08/2012 10:53, Michael Schwendt a écrit :

> It's a bug in the same way it would be a bug if the headers were stored
> below %_bindir, %_mandir, %_sysconfdir or dirs other than %_includedir.

I mostly agree, but...
Where arch specific header should go ?

$ find /usr/lib64 -name *.h | wc -l
393

most are perl and qt headers,
but some gnome package also put their header here.

Currently we use some workaround (see mysql or libzip)
/usr/include/mysql/my_config.h
/usr/include/zipconf.h

(libzip upstream also use %{_libdir} for zipconf.h)

So, I think, %{_libdir}/foo/include is not a so bad solution.


Remi.

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-08-2012, 02:21 PM
Ankur Sinha
 
Default Is this a bug or not?

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:53 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> It may be worth a shot to contact libffi upstream about that unless
> it's just the Fedora package that uses %_libdir for the headers.

I just peeked into the spec[1]. Looks like this is how upstream places
the header.

Simone has already commented[2], requesting maintainer to move the
header to %{_includedir} and update the pc file.


[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libffi.git/tree/libffi.spec?h=f18&id=d65ba2902243db21cce014b1a4bf3 83cc3f4d364

[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727301#c6

--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur: "FranciscoD"

Please only print if necessary.

Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-08-2012, 04:56 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Is this a bug or not?

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:09:15 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:

> > It's a bug in the same way it would be a bug if the headers were stored
> > below %_bindir, %_mandir, %_sysconfdir or dirs other than %_includedir.
>
> I mostly agree, but...
> Where arch specific header should go ?

%{_includedir}/something-target-cpu-dependent/

and have $(pkg-config --cflags) return that directory. With a versioned
topdir, one example would be:

/usr/include/libname-1.0/${ARCH}/libname/*.h

$ pkg-config --cflags libname-1.0
-I/usr/include/libname-1.0/${ARCH}

#include <libname/….h>

It could even be the upstream installer doing that, with arch-dependent
conditionals in platform-independent headers including the arch-specific
bits from subdirs.

/usr/include/libname/*.h
-> /usr/include/libname/${ARCH1}/*.h
-> /usr/include/libname/${ARCH2}/*.h

And if it weren't a versioned topdir, you could even access the header
files without extending search path list, since /usr/include is a default
search path whereas %_libdir is not.

> $ find /usr/lib64 -name *.h | wc -l
> 393
>
> most are perl and qt headers,
> but some gnome package also put their header here.

Qt also stores (or used to store) executables somewhere below %_libdir,
using it as some sort of home/root dir. Not a suitable counter-example
to prove anything other than that some more headers are misplaced.

> Currently we use some workaround (see mysql or libzip)
> /usr/include/mysql/my_config.h
> /usr/include/zipconf.h
>
> (libzip upstream also use %{_libdir} for zipconf.h)
>
> So, I think, %{_libdir}/foo/include is not a so bad solution.

For multiarch, it's a work-around only, a lazy one, as %_libdir is a quick
way to get a directory that differs by arch.

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.00 0.09 0.39
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 AM.

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