FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-05-24
a.badger at gmail.com
Mon May 28 18:58:27 UTC 2007
On 5/27/07, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > Static libs package- cernlib & paw
> > * cernlib should conform to the packaging guidelines for static
> > libs, namely that it's static libs be in a -static subpackage.
> Ok... I am not very happy with that since I fear it will break users
> expectations, however it may also help shape users expectations that
> static libs are in separate packages. Testing local build right now and
> building it in koji as soon as possible.
It would be my hope that user expectations would change, yes. (If the
users of the -static subpackage for cernlib need to link against other
libraries statically, they'll need to get used to this anyway so it's
best to be consistent.) Thanks!
> > * It's alright to statically link paw, but it needs a blocker bug
> > opened on it, so that it can be fixed in the near future.
> If you like. This is something which is working on or more precisely known
> where it should, but opening a bug is not that problematic. There was a
> bug opened because paw wasn't working
> Should I reopen that bug, or open a new one?
> As a side note I didn't found a bug opened in debian, although this is
> where it would currently make much more sense.
Right. A bug for the Debian maintainers and a tracker bug in Fedora
that references that would probably be a good place to start.
> A more detailed explanation is there, for those who want to know more:
> If somebody is willing to work on that that would be incredible, but I
> am not very confident it is gonna happen ;-).
I read that FAQ as background for last week's meeting :-(. It looks
like someone needs to get the gumption to start a cernlib2 project.
There seems to be a lot of portability issues with cernlib that the
Debian maintainers have sometimes been able to fix and other times are
unsure whether they've fixed or just got it to compile and not
segfault immediately. Making correct fixes appears to require ABI
changes which upstream cernlib is unwilling to do.
More information about the fedora-devel-list