[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Followup to FESCO meeting: firefox dependancy tracking.



Let me first preface this by stating very clearly: Firefox is NOT a devel environment. It will NEVER be one. There is a -devel package only because there is no other choice at the moment. There is no supported way to use a gecko build environment from upstream until XULrunner 1.0 is released. Every package that attempts to build against Firefox is doing so at their own risk.

Having said that, every package in Core which needs to has always had an explicit versioned requires (except for the packages in FC6 GOLD which was an unfortunate regression, but long since fixed). See the latest epiphany/devhelp/yelp RPMs for how to do the dependencies (I'm not sure how they got in your list of non-versioned deps unless you looked at FC6 GOLD).

So, the real question is now: do we want to continue to allow more gecko based applications into fedora at all? There is no real build environment for it, and it works only as a side effect of hacking it up to work for yelp, really which we need and is in core. I'd like to say no if we can help it. Things like esc have no business using gecko, IMO. Using gecko just opens up the package maintainer to a world of pain, which I also have to face, but I'm being paid for it at least. It is a negative experience for the maintainer to have to rebuild things all the damn time.



On 01/05/2007 02:17 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
As per the FESCO meeting item list, and irc discussion, here is my
humble attempt to identify via repoquery what packages are currently
prone to library dependancy breakage without being noticed by the
automated scripts which just look for rpm autogenerated library
dependancies.

these are packages which have a requirement on a library from firefox,
but do not explicitly require firefox or gecko-libs:

epiphany-extensions-0:2.16.1-1.i386
gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin-0:0.6.3-4.fc6.i386
openvrml-gtkplug-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386
openvrml-mozilla-plugin-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386

If you just look at packages which do not use a versioned firefox dep
you also get:

devhelp-0:0.12-9.fc6.i386
epiphany-0:2.16.2-1.fc6.i386
galeon-0:2.0.3-4.fc6.1.i386
gtkmozembedmm-0:1.4.2.cvs20060817-7.fc6.i386
libswt3-gtk2-1:3.2.1-23.fc6.i386
openvrml-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386
yelp-0:2.16.0-11.fc6.i386


The only packages which use a versioned firefox requirements are:

gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-0:2.14.2-6.fc6.i386
liferea-0:1.0.26-2.fc6.i386

My suggestion is that all packages which end up requiring a library
from firefox should use a versioned dependancy as long as firefox
continues to keep its libraries in a versioned directory tree (
currently  /usr/lib/firefox-1.5.0.9/ ). If a versioned firefox
requirement is used we can atleast become aware of breakage as it
happens via the available infrastructure scripts. As it stands the
majority of the packages which depend on libraries from firefox will
have library breakages on firefox updates and we can't see them from
the available rpm dependancy information. Users will hit this issues
when the library linker goes looking for a library in the wrong place.

Comments?  Should I start filing bugs against these packages to get
versioned firefox requires added to their specfiles?  Should we look
at making this sort of thing part of the review process that should be
checked for?

Note that my use of repoquery still doesn't catch problematic packages
like gnome-python2-extras nor esc which do not have trackable rpm
library dependancies for repoquery to work with.

-jef

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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]