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: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Partitioning upstream packages into libs and binaries.
  • Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:46:01 -0500

On Oct 29, Thomas Orgis [thomas-forum AT orgis.org] wrote:
> Am Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:21:02 -0500
> schrieb Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>:
>
> > So now we have other distros so ingrained in hacking upstream things to
> > fit
> > their ideals that upstream developers actively depend on it. Awesome.
>
> That's my reaction, yes. I was always aware of source-based distros
> being fringe cases for hackers ... but though that upstream consists of
> hackers, too.

+1

> > Our commitment to our users has been that if they cast a spell they'll get
> > the same thing they would if they downloaded that package and installed it
> > manually.
>
> ... plus some management to prevent things blowing up. Would ignoring
> that two spells install the same binaries (same name, at least) be an
> option?
> Since it's not really a conflict, more of a dispute who owns them.

The defined "exception" has always been where stuff gets installed.
Download something and run ./configure && make && make install and you're
going to get things /usr/local 99% of the time--we modify that to match FHS
as best we can.

> > I would say just tell the thing to install under /opt/spell-$major, libs
> > and utils both, so the user gets the whole upstream thing and can sort out
> > from there what they want done with it.
>
> > Does this package provide proper pkg-config data such that if it's
> > installed in /opt other things have an easy way to find it?
>
> Uh. That means that folks have to add /opt/package/bin to their $PATH
> and also /opt/lib/pkgconfig for pkgconfig ... no ... actually this has
> to be done for root so that casting dependent spells works. Isn't this
> more hassle than it's worth? Unless we stuff the pkgconfig file
> into /usr/lib/pkgconfig. Did you mean that?

I was spitballing mostly but yes, something like install it into
/opt/package and then symlink the pkgconfig file across to
/usr/lib/pkgconfig, or ask the admin if they want that. For $PATH I'd
leave it alone but we could prompt for that as well.

> Bottom line is that i did this upstream-desired split for for lilv-0
> and lilv-util. I case we really want to stick to "gimme the whole thing

I suppose the other thing with some precedent would be an
upstream-recommended patch, but ask first, so the end resultd could be
getting lilv-0 and lilv-1 both installed, and only one of them has the util
files. How flexible is CONFLICTS these days?

> I get from source", I can change that, of course (do we deprecate
> spells that weren't in stable yet?). That spell is really small, so the
> trouble is not that big. But I wanted to have it discussed for the
> future, when upstream devs increasingly move to that model of mandated
> packaging.

Hopefully this person is a freak of nature and it never comes up again.

Attachment: pgp3HK2TdjWM0.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page