[Fedora-packaging] are subpackages required for optional loadable libraries?
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
dominik at greysector.net
Wed Feb 27 01:31:41 UTC 2008
On Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 02:23, John Dennis wrote:
> Historically when a package includes optional support via a loadable module
> we've put the loadable module in a subpackage. For example a package might
> include a module supporting mysql so we would create a mysql subpackage
> which contains the mysql loadable module and the subpackage would require
> mysql. I presume the reason we've historically created these little
> subpackages is to deal with dependency issues.
> But suppose your package includes dozens of optional loadable modules does
> it still make sense to create dozens of subpackages?
IMHO it does make sense. I know disk space is cheap, but still I prefer
to keep my system free of any unnecessary stuff.
> It starts to get unwieldly really quick.
What exactly is the problem?
> Is it permissible to skip all the subpackages, have
> the rpm include all the loadable modules, and put the onus on the user such
> that if they edit the main package's config file to load the mysql module
> it's up to them to make sure the mysql libraries are installed?
> Here's another issue: Suppose the package puts it's loadable modules (e.g.
> .so's) in it's own subdirectory for loadable modules. RPM's automatic
> dependency checking seems to completely miss all the external libraries
> needed at run time to load one of the modules and resolve all it's
> references. The net result is none of these external dependencies get
> picked up at all. Is that O.K.? How does one deal with that in a spec file?
> The answer to this question probably drives the answer to the first
I find it odd that it doesn't find the dependencies on external libraries.
Could you show the package to us? It may be a bug in the dependency generator.
> FWIW, the upstream spec file does not create a subpackage per loadable
> module. It does create a subpackage containing all the loadable modules.
> When we build the loadable module subpackage the resulting rpm is missing a
> lot of the external dependencies on external .so's. That's unfortunate but
> I'm thinking it's the only practical way to deal with it. Trying to factor
> out all the dependencies will be a packaging nightmare and it's going to be
> a headache for users trying to install, they're going to have to deal with
> lots of subpackages. At least with the scheme where all the loadable
> modules are in one subpackage you won't pull in stuff you don't want or
> need, but at the expense of not pulling in something you might need.
Well, without seeing the package, it's difficult to comment on this.
I still think it's desirable to split the parts that require additional
external libraries as much as possible.
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
More information about the Fedora-packaging