[Mageia-dev] Standardising the virtual Provides in -devel packages

Wed Jul 13 12:41:22 CEST 2011

On 13 July 2011 12:34, nicolas vigier <boklm at mars-attacks.org> wrote:
+> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Ahmad Samir wrote:
+>
+>> On 10 July 2011 10:03, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+>> > On 8 July 2011 06:37, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+>> >> Hello.
+>> >>
+>> >> I've had a rather vague idea about standardising the virtual provides
+>> >> in the distro, there should be:
+>> >> Provides: %{name}-devel
+>> >> Provides: lib%{name}-devel
+>> >>
+>> >> either both of them in _all_ packages, or one of them in _all_
+>> >> packages, so that we don't have to check urpmq --provides all the
+>> >> time. Personally, I am more inclined on having them both, so as not to
+>> >> break already working specs.
+>> >>
+>> >> For example:
+>> >> $ urpmq --provides lib64gudev1.0-devel-166-5.mga1.x86_64
+>> >> libgudev-devel[== 166-5.mga1]
+>> >> pkgconfig(gudev-1.0)[== 166]
+>> >> devel(libgudev-1.0(64bit))
+>> >> lib64gudev1.0-devel[== 166-5.mga1]
+>> >> lib64gudev1.0-devel(x86-64)[== 166-5.mga1]
+>> >>
+>> >> only libgudev-devel, so if I put BR gudev-devel in a spec it won't
+>> >> work, whereas I'd expect it to work since some other packages have
+>> >> such similar provides:
+>> >> $ urpmq --provides lib64dbus-1-devel
+>> >> libdbus-1-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1]
+>> >> libdbus-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1]
+>> >> dbus-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1]
+>> >> [...]
+>> >>
+>> >>
+>> >> WDYT?
+>> >>
+>> >> (If we agree to go one way or the other, will just fix them gradually
+>> >> over time).
+>> >>
+>> >> --
+>> >> Ahmad Samir
+>> >>
+>> >
+>> > Adding to the above, spturtle has suggested using pkgconfig()
+>> > provides: https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2065
+>> >
+>> > --
+>> > Ahmad Samir
+>> >
+>>
+>> Using pkgconfig provides looks like an optimal option, we could start
+>> now, whenever we touch a spec we change to the pkgconfig provides, and
+>> gradually all the specs will be adapted.
+>>
+>> And for the packages that don't have .pc files we add:
+>> Provides: %{name}-devel = %{version}-release
+>> Provides: lib%{name}-devel = %{version}-release
+>>
+>> or we could add them to all packages whether they have .pc files or
+>> not, but still always use pkgconfig() provides as BR in our specs.
+>
+> I think it's better to use %{name}-devel for packages which don't have
+> pkgconfig files. And keep pkgconfig() provides for packages with .pc
+> files.
+>
+>
+
+As spturtle said, conformity/consistency is good, i.e. all our
+packages should have the same Provides, that's better in the long run,
+and less confusing for new (and old too) packagers.
+
+The cost of dropping lib%{name}-devel altogether is some specs may
+break, but that can be mitigated by adding the SRPMS repos manually (I
+didn't know those repos had hdlists, until tv pointed it out in
+another thread some time ago), and checking:
+urpmf --media Core-SRPMS --requires lib%{name}-devel
+
+and then fixing all the specs that has lib%{name}-devel (that may be a
+daunting task sometimes, though).
+
+The point is, we don't have to fix this tomorrow, we start now and
+with mga2/3 all the specs will have been cleaned up.
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+