diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005723.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005723.html | 249 |
1 files changed, 249 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005723.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005723.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3668d52f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005723.html @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ? + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Lib%20policy%20change%20needed%20%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C4DF8E69D.2040509%40iki.fi%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005719.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005733.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ?</H1> + <B>Anssi Hannula</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Lib%20policy%20change%20needed%20%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C4DF8E69D.2040509%40iki.fi%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ?">anssi.hannula at iki.fi + </A><BR> + <I>Wed Jun 15 19:06:37 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005719.html">[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ? +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005733.html">[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ? +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5723">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5723">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5723">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5723">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>On 15.06.2011 19:15, Ahmad Samir wrote: +><i> On 15 June 2011 10:44, Christiaan Welvaart <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">cjw at daneel.dyndns.org</A>> wrote: +</I>>><i> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Dexter Morgan wrote: +</I>>><i> +</I>>>><i> the last BS breakage makes me thing that we should adjust our +</I>>>><i> packaging policy and add only one lib per lib package. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> On our last BS breakage we had as error : +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> A requested package cannot be installed: +</I>>>><i> seahorse-2.32.0-2.mga1.x86_64 (due to unsatisfied libgp11.so.0()(64bit)) +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> because libgp11.so.0 was in libgcr0 but disappeared. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> This was of course a packaging error, the version postfix in the package +</I>>><i> name should have been modified. +</I>>><i> +</I>>>><i> WDYT about this new policy ? +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Fine with me, always considered it strange when the lib version in the pkg +</I>>><i> name does not correspond to major version of some of the libraries in a +</I>>><i> package. I agree this policy change or clarification (if followed) will +</I>>><i> likely prevent such mistakes in the future. And it should not cause any +</I>>><i> problems since we have automatic library provides and dependencies. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Christiaan +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Splitting every single lib in a separate package isn't ideal, IMHO +</I>><i> (just look at how many kde library packages we have). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Libraries that have the same major from the same src.rpm should be in +</I>><i> the same sub-package as much as possible (i.e. all glib-related libs +</I>><i> in one package, extensions (e.g. nautilus extensions) could be each in +</I>><i> a sub-package); and split only if something would require one lib but +</I>><i> not another from that lib package, i.e. split when needed, not +</I>><i> generally. +</I> +I'd do the split when there is a potential for the majors to be +different (i.e. the major numbers are defined separately for each library). + +><i> For example look at Amarok: +</I>><i> $ urpmf --sourcerpm :amarok | sort | grep lib +</I>><i> lib64amarokcore1:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> lib64amaroklib1:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> lib64amarokocsclient4:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> lib64amarokpud1:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> lib64amarok-sqlcollection1:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> lib64amarok-transcoding1:amarok-2.4.1-0.mga1.src.rpm +</I>><i> +</I>><i> every lib is in a separate package, even though: +</I>><i> - Nothing else uses any of those libs other than Amarok +</I>><i> - Amarok is linked against all of those libs and it wouldn't work if +</I>><i> you uninstall any of them +</I>><i> +</I>><i> In such a case grouping all of them in one lib*amarok package would be +</I>><i> easier, there'll never be any file conflicts when the mojor of any of +</I>><i> them changes. +</I> +IMO we should have an exception so that libraries like these that are +related to and required by a single program/package that are not +expected (i.e. there are no header files) to be used by others, should +be packaged in the main package itself. + +I.e. I'd put all of those in amarok package itself, if there is zero +advantage from splitting them. + +><i> P.S. I am not a packaging expert. +</I> +-- +Anssi Hannula +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005719.html">[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ? +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005733.html">[Mageia-dev] Lib policy change needed ? +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5723">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5723">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5723">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5723">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |