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
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
