[Bug 227669] Review Request: <ppl-0.9> - <A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions>

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: <ppl-0.9> - <A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions>


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669





------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net  2007-02-10 10:19 EST -------
> I have added "BuildRequires: gmp-devel".  But shouldn't we also
> have "Requires: gmp-devel"?  I mean, the PPL header files include
> the GMP header files, so to use the library (as well as to build
> it) the GMP header files must be present.

Right. Then a "Requires: gmp-devel" must be added to "ppl-devel"
as soon as it exists.

> Moreover, building the library also requires gcc, gcc-c++
> and probably many other tools: should these all be listed?

No. C/C++ compilers and a set of other development tools belong
into the default build environment and are expected to be present:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions

> Also, using the library certainly requires libstdc++ and building
> requires libstdc++-devel.  What is the rationale here?

As above, these belong also into the set of packages, which is a
minimal environment for software development.
E.g. gcc-c++ "Requires: libstdc++ libstdc++-devel" already, and it's
similar for the C compiler and the C Standard Library.

[no static libs]

> Is this really necessary?

This is what the Packaging Committee works on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage

> The PPL consists of one core library and several interfaces (C++, C
> plus 6 Prolog dialects;  in forthcoming version 0.10 there are also
> an OCaml and a Java interface). 

Still, C++ and C are close relatives, and when the main "ppl" package
contains the C++ ppl, it doesn't hurt to include the C ppl, too. For
the C++/C stuff you then have only two packages: ppl and ppl-devel

For the other languages, sub-packages are better, as they likely
create additional dependencies on language-specific packages. And
you don't want that the C++ programmer needs to install packages
for many other languages.

>3) To reduce the number of packages further, the distinction between
>  base and devel packages could be dropped for the other interfaces:
>  it is quite likely that those who need ppl-some-prolog will need
>  also ppl-some-prolog-devel.

This would be in violation of the packaging guidelines. It would be
a problem, when run-time components would depend on -devel components
which is not allowed.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.