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

Re: status of forked zlibs in rsync and zsync



On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 11:27 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 09/15/2009 06:55 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:44 +0200, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> I googled for it and found Karims blogpost and Simon aka kassamedias
> >> answer (comment 3)
> >>
> >> http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/zsync-transfer-large-files-efficiently/
> > 
> > If we _really_ cared about doing this OAOO, we could probably get the
> > rsync package to drop out its own zlib copy as a shared lib, make that a
> > subpackage, and link zsync against that.
> > 
> > But, for 74k of shared library, I just don't care that much.  This
> > shouldn't block packaging zsync.
> > 
> The rules against shared libraries aren't because of saving space::
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_Bundled_Libraries

I'm aware, I just don't think they read strongly enough on this case to
matter.  The copy of zlib is there _because_ it can't change, so the
arguments for changing things OAOO are really weak.

I'm also not aware of any precedent for what to name a library like
this.  %{_libdir}/libfedora-rsync-zlib.so.0 ? What version number do we
pick?  Who's responsible for making sure it gets bumped when it should?
Seems like a lot of policy to type for very little practical gain.

Speaking more generally, the package review process makes it very hard
to get anything in the door if it doesn't fit the existing rules, and
the rules do not change quickly.  We would probably deliver more value
if we were willing to accept packages with merely a _plan_ to fix the
deviations.  As a bonus, we'd have a list of things to do for people
looking for ways to contribute.

- ajax

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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