Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Partitioning upstream packages into libs and binaries.

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Partitioning upstream packages into libs and binaries.
  • Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:16:36 -0500

Hey,

Just curious. Why is there a need to keep the older libraries? If there is
something that is using the old libraries it would need to be setup to
recompile with the new libraries?

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook


On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:19:53 +0200
Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just had a discussion with a certain upstream author, who was not
> overly enthusiastic to cater for the special needs of source-based
> distros. His software was the first I encountered carrying a
> recommendation to please split it up for packaging.
>
> He pointed out that (virtually) all binary distros do that anyway and
> has difficulty understanding why I got trouble with the situation. The
> situation is this:
>
> 1. Upstream package xyz contains a library and utilities.
>
> 2. The library has a major version, differing major versions shall be
> installable side-by-side. So, there's libxyz-0, libxyz-1, etc., along
> with /usr/include/xyz-0, /usr/include/xyz-1. This is the one point
> upstream rather insists on.
>
> 3. The utilities carry no version number. Those from xyz-1 superseed
> those from xyz-0.
>
> Now, Source Mage has an issue with the last point: We cannot just do a
> normal install of the whole package because the differing major
> versions would conflict. My solution is create a separate spell for
> the utils, xyz-util, that uses the most recent major library. For each
> library spell, I have to edit out the utilities during installation,
> for the utility spell, I have to edit out the library. Also it sucks to
> have to build the whole thing twice just to be able to have separate
> spell ownership for versioned libraries and unversioned binaries.
>
> Upstream doesn't understand why that should be a problem and if there
> is one, it's one with our workflow.
>
> Granted, the current case is a small library that needs a few seconds
> to cast only, but I want to get the big picture settled. Usually, we
> don't split up things, but in this case upstream asks us to do so and
> we have to split binaries and libraries to comply with the installation
> of multiple major versions.
>
> Is there a way with sorcery I missed, enabling us to avoid repeating
> the same build process for xyz-0 and xyz-util? Some common scheme to
> select portions of the stuff for actual installation? The latter should
> be easy with castfs, shouldn't it?
>
> Perhaps it is worth it to think about how this requirement to split
> things up, this thinking in terms of the usual procedure for building
> rpms and the like, maps to sorcery functionality. Should I rather ditch
> the possibilities to install differing major library series in parallel
> to avoid it all? Should sorcery support sub-spells (casting xyz-0 and
> xyz-util maps to building one smart xyz-0 package that also builds the
> utilities and installs them as virtual spell xyz-util)?
>
>
> Alrighty then,
>
> Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page