Deep Freeze coming for Fedora 7 (and cvs branching coming too)

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue May 22 02:58:55 UTC 2007


On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 00:44 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:35:11PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > The static-libs naming was resolved on list with no guidelines changes
> > needing to be made.
> 
> I was not referring to the static-libs naming itself but to the
> following discussion, starting approximately at
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-April/msg00185.html
> 
> > The static library thread basically came to the same place that we are
> > at here.  You have to follow the Guidelines.  The reasons that the
> > guidelines are written as they are is in Ralf's email and in this
> > current exchange.  By following the Guidelines you can help get them to
> > change.
> 
> I can't see how. I can lose a lot of time I could devote to other tasks,
> however.
>  
As I said, that thread contains two pieces -- naming (which had a
solution) and libraries which should have static libs.  I don't see
anything in that thread that can be used to formulate a guideline of
when a static library should be allowed in general.  Please point us to
the thread which gives the criteria that we can use to determine if a
library is part of the category that should be allowed to ship static
libraries.

> > Express an example of silliness and present a draft with the example as
> > something that should be allowed.  However, the attitude that there are
> > some changes that are too silly to be recorded in the changelog is
> > exactly why the people that voted for the changelog guideline voted for
> > it.  You are violating the spirit of the guideline as well as the letter
> > by not putting a changelog entry in and I think your draft, example, and
> > arguments will have to be very persuasive in order to make a change to
> > this guideline.
> 
> Honestly for this example I thought I wasn't really violating the
> guideline and it was implicitly ok to avoid some changelog entries as
> the reverse seems so unnatural and bureaucratic to me. Moreover I have
> seen a lot of other packagers doing that while reading the commit
> messages without anybody complaining, so I thought it was ok, I stand
> corrected.
> 
We could be talking about different things... it's hard to tell from
looking at your changelog :-)

Every build must have a new changelog entry.  Every commit does not.  So
when I see this changelog:

* Mon May 14 2007 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> 2006-10.1
- packlib/{ffread,hbook} test segfaults on ppc64

* Sun May 13 2007 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> 2006-9
- add a compat prefix when built with g77
- new debian patcheset

It's fine if 2006-10 was never built.  You should have had another entry
if 2006-10 was committed but not built.

> > Not true.  A Makefile can do whatever it wants.  A spec file is also
> > just a shell script when it comes down to it.
> 
> Of course it can. But if there is a package not using -l to link it is a
> serious bug already. And having static libs in -static subpackages means
> that it really cannot happen, this point is moot.
> 
Not quite.  If you have a package which provides libraries and utilities
it can very easily be linking against static versions of the library
instead of the dynamic versions without pulling in a -static subpackage.

> > > I did it without success.
> > No.  You did it without succeeding in getting the guidelines changed.
> > You have a minority opinion.  So you have to do some legwork to get the
> > majority to come over to your viewpoint.  The most effective way to do
> > that in this case is not to write arguments to the mailing list.  The
> > most effective way is to follow the guidelines and thereby amass a body
> > of packaging that supports your statements and shows what changes need
> > to be written into the guidelines.
> 
> I don't have time, nor will to do that kind of work. I have arguments
> nobody responds to, I don't need to give number or evidences. 
>  
You have arguments that other people feel are made moot because of the
arguments they have already stated.  That is why they don't respond.
You have to present all your arguments so we can see if those people are
right or if there are still some arguments left on your side that are
unaddressed.

> > You claim that the guidelines should be changed to allow numerical
> > libraries to ship static libs but I can honestly say that FESCo has not
> > been asked to allow one numerical library to ship a static library since
> > the guideline went into effect.  By bypassing the guidelines you're
> > making it so we are unaware of the problems with the guidelines and
> > denying us the data to change the guidelines to be better.
> 
> I have always said, and I'll say it once more that I was ready to give 
> the data, not to ask for permission.
> 
But you have failed to even do that.  Phrase your letter as data if you
like and just shrug your shoulders if you receive a letter back saying
"Approved".

> > Once that's done, write another letter that says "These libraries have
> > no shared libraries upstream.  Thus they need to ship static libraries."
> > and repeat.
> 
> Are you really meaning that the guideline (that is asking FESCo for
> static libs inclusion) is also in order for packages that ship only
> static libs. Once again it seems so weird to me that I figured that it
> wasn't needed.
> 
It's one way to read the guidelines, yes.  I think that needs to change:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryChanges

[snip]

Since you're unwilling to do any of the work to get the guidelines
changed, here's what I'm going to be working on:

The guidelines currently lump inclusion of static libraries and linking
to static libraries in the same guideline.  I'll be proposing a revision
that separates those two.

Inclusion of static libraries is up to the maintainer as long as the
requirement to put static libraries in a -static package is met.

Rework the -static subpackage requirement to take into account Ralf's
message about -static/-devel packages in the absence of a dynamic
library.

I'm not going to ask to change the guidelines WRT linking to static
libraries.  (You'll still have to ask FESCo if you want to link to a
static libary).

I'm not going to ask for a special case exception for numerical
libraries.

These are significant changes from the current guidelines and they might
not be approved by the Packaging Committee in which case your packaging
will still be out of compliance and someone could open bugs against your
packages.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070521/81ecf1fc/attachment.sig>


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list