On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 04:43:13PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Unless a guideline is marked as a "should" it is mandatory. If you > disagree with something the guidelines say is a must, the proper thing > to do is to get the guideline changed.[1]_ For the static libraries, I voiced my concerns on fedora-packaging, Ralf responded without answering my arguments, I reresponded and nothing happened after that. Although there had been a big thread were my point appeared clearly, and more recently in another thread about static libs naming. Now I am tired to relaunch the subject just to have nobody answering anything relevant, so I bypass the guidelines. > For changelogs, the guidelines say: "Every time you make changes, that > is, whenever you increment the E-V-R of a package, add a changelog > entry." > This means you must write a changelog entry. The reasons are given in > the guidelines [2]_. Sometimes it is silly to add a changelog entry in that case I don't add a changelog entry, period. (You can have a look at my cvs commit entries for example see recent commit for the cernlib if you like ti understand why). > For static libraries, the guidelines recognize that there may be > instances where static libraries are desirable. If you want to either > provide static libraries in a subpackage or to link against static > libraries you must ask FESCo for permission. This check was written for > several reasons: > > 1) static libraries are a security hazard and there is a strong desire > to keep the libraries from being linked into packages provided by > Fedora. This check helps FESCo and the packaging committee enforce > this. Moot for numerical libraries. > 2) The Packaging Committee realized that there are packages that need to > contravene this policy but not how many. If there are hundreds of > libraries in Fedora requesting to ship static libraries then the > guideline must be revised to accommodate them. If it's only a dozen > then having exceptions for those packages is sufficient. I always said that I agreed to report to FESCo that I ship a static lib, but that it was silly to ask FESCo when I know better, and I won't do it. > 3) The Packaging Committee realized that this draft could be made better > if we could draft a statement that covered the valid cases without > letting packages without sufficient reasons in. However we didn't have > a large enough sample of valid packages to be able to write that yet. > By having this reported we would be able to gather information on what > rule could be made to fit this. There is at least the cernlib, the gsl, lapack, blas, and certainly netcdf, hdf. Some packages have static libs because upstream doesn't provide a shared lib, like (packages I know because I maintain them) libnet10, libnet. It is quite unfortunate in that case but I have argued a lot of time why I think it is better not to introduce shared libs in fedora at that point. > Deciding "not to bother FESCo" with this is not saving us time; it is > making it so someone down the line has to spend time finding which > packages are linking against static libraries without an exemption and > figure out what the proper fix is. That's wrong. No package will ever link against static libs when there are shared libs. And I agree that static packages in -static packages is right in most cases (I think that for the cernlib it is not right so I made an exception for that lib, but this is a very specific case) so this is doubly wrong. > ''' > The Packaging Guidelines are a collection of common issues and the > severity that should be placed on them. While these guidelines should > not be ignored, they should also not be blindly followed. If you think > that your package should be exempt from part of the Guidelines, please > bring the issue to the Fedora Packaging Committee. > ''' I did it without success. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
