On 02/12/2010 02:09 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:48 -0800, > John Reiser<jreiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The package that needs the src is the upx package. The coupling >> is very strong, therefore a physical copy of the entire specific >> version of lzma source was put into the source for Fedora's upx. >> The URL for that lzma source was recorded, but not used as a SourceN:. >> It is expected that the URL will become stale. > > Do you think packaging that as a subpackage is worth while? A couple of other > packages seem to do that kind of thing? Going forward, there should be a -libs package (and probably a -devel package) and its use should be encouraged (instead of lzma source), particularly for new uses. Probably it is too difficult to force _all_ existing uses of lzma source to convert to using -libs. The reasons have to do with ten years of history: the original author of lzma resisted providing libraries, the internal interfaces changed too rapidly, the original licensing was too restrictive, etc. Today http://7-zip.org/sdk.html says "LZMA SDK is placed in the public domain". > Where is an appropriate location to put the source? The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same directory as upx-3.04.tar.bz2. > Is a buildrequires on a package that provides source allowed for packaging? I don't know. -- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
