On Tuesday, May 12 2009, Daniel P. Berrange said: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:52:01AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > [I posted this before, but no one replied, so sending again to > > > fedora-devel-list] > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225406#c7 > > > > > > I would like to propose that e2fsprogs generate four subpackages for > > > the independent libraries that it contains. These four libraries are > > > used by other packages that don't need the whole of e2fsprogs-devel > > > (eg. krb5_workstation uses libss, qpid uses libuuid, and many programs > > > use libcom_err). > > > > I'm generally open to the suggestion, but last time I had this concern... > > > > > The next problem I see is that by putting things like blkid, uuidgen, > > > compile_et, mk_cmds into the lib$FOO packages, they are now no longer > > > multilib-safe; the binaries will collide. The binaries won't end up colliding as rpm is (sort of) smart about handing conflicting multilib binaries like this, but ... > > is this going to be a subpackage-explosion? for example: > > > > uuid.rpm (with the binary tool(s)) > > uuid-libs.rpm > > uuid-devel.rpm > > > > and so on for each of the above binary+libs? > > IMHO, having separate sub-packages for each of the command line tools > is overkill. Just put the libraries in -libs & -devel, but keep all > the binaries in e2fsprogs. This would avoid any multilib issues with > binaries, and keep the number of sub-packages sane. This feels more reasonable anyway. Having binaries in a lib package is just a little weird Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
