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

[Patrice Dumas]

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.
 
> Bypassing the guidelines as you are doing is just going to lead us to
> Packaging Armageddon with each rule being violated by those that
> disagree with it.  This has to stop.

I agree that guidelines should be followed in general, but not at all
cost.

> 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.

This is very different from static libs, for which I deliberatly
violate the guidelines.

> > I always said that I agreed to report to FESCo that I ship a static lib,
> > but that it was silly to ask FESCo when I know better, and I won't do it.
> > 
> Then you are not in compliance with the guidelines.  The Packaging
> Committee itself has no teeth to enforce them.  FESCo will have to
> decide if it wants to enforce the guidelines, delegate that power, or
> let the guidelines be informational rather than binding.

It seems that the issue of reporting voluntary violations of the
guidelines and how things are settled in that case to be more or less
solved, and indeed this is a good thing to know how the 'justice' part
of Fedora is working, I think it was lacking before.

> 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.

> > 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 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.

> We've left a door wide open for you to effect a change.  Write a letter
> that says "These are numerical libraries, ie, ones that [Distinguishing
> features that make them relevant to this discussion].  As such they
> should be allowed to (ship|link) a static library."  Take your list of
> libraries from above and add them to the form letter.  Send it to FESCo
> as a reply to "Plan for tomorrows (20070517) FESCO meeting" as an agenda
> item like "Packages needing static libraries".  Then FESCo or the
> Packaging Committee can evaluate the magnitude of the problem and
> attempt to reword the guideline to accommodate them.

I am not going to do that bureaucratic stuff if there is no 

> 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.

> There are several things that can result from this:
> 
> 1) Your reasons for thinking these libraries are special won't be seen
> by FESCo so they'll be denied.  (Be sure to make your arguments
> persuasive and descriptive and if possible show up for the meeting where
> this is discussed :-)

I have never used IRC and I definitvely haven't time to do that. As for 
persuasion there was a long thread on -devel I always refer to and so
far nobody had a counter-argument. One can say that he isn't convinced
without rational arguments, even a collective body can. But in that case
I don't feel bound to that decision and I will violate it, that's
rpecisely how I perceive the case of static libs currently.

> 2) FESCo will simply allow the libraries through without a fuss.  You're
> neither better off nor worse off than before.

Except for all the unneeded work done, although there are arguments that
were already made (with great effort and time loss).

> 3) FESCo will not want to deal with this everytime a numerical library
> is reviewed.  Seeing that you've extracted the important bits that
> define a numerical library and why it is in need of static libraries,
> they'll forward it on to the packaging committee to revise the
> guidelines so they don't have to deal with approving libraries of these
> types anymore.

I don't have time to go through 'define a numerical library' I have
already a reference to a thread explaining 'why it is in need of static
libraries', so I don't think things willl change magically.
 
> Nobody likes to do more work than they have to.  Assuming your
> description of what makes the libraries in question deserving of
> shipping in static form is sufficient to show why and how the rules can
> be amended to allow the kind of libraries you are requesting through, I
> can't imagine that FESCo won't send the definition of numerical library
> on to the Packaging Committee.  It is, after all, why the rules were
> drafted the way they are.

My mail on the packaging list was unanswered (or more precisely, the
points about static libs were unnanswered), I can't see why it will be
different this time.

To summarize my point, I think that what you propose above is burrying
the issue in a lot of bureaucratic work, although there is already an
unnanswered technical argument, that was already a lot of work to bring
up in a long thread. I prefer being punished than go through the work
you propose -- as long as nobody has answered my technical point. If
somebody has something relevant to say on the subject of the libs that
don't need dynamic linking and need portability I may reconsider my
position, however.

--
Pat