On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:16:37PM +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote: > 2011/1/16 Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Would you be so kind as to file BZs against midori and xiphos indicating > > that they either need to switch to using system waf or file a Trac with > > FPC for an exception if there's a really good reason to bundle? > > Could do that, but I think we should ask FPC for a general exception. > > waf is intended to be bundled, and its api changes from time to time. > waf's upstream even officially discourages installing it system-wide > (and has removed the installation routine in later releases). Some > people might find an rpm handy nevertheless, that's why we still > package it, while e.g. Debian has stopped packaging it. Forcing our > package maintainers to use system's waf (which might be a on different > version than that embedded in their source tars) might put extra > burden on them and is probably not worth the effort - we are talking > about a build system, not a run-time lib. > It's possible that it could be shown to be a copylib: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs But waf does make periodic releases so that might not be the right exception. If you could draw parallels between the autotools and waf, that might be a way to look at it. I'll note, though, that the autotools have a layer that is used to create the build scripts which should not be bundled (autoconf, automake, and the like), and a layer that is the actual build scripts (configure.ac, Makefile.am, etc) which are bundled so we'd need to figure out if waf should fit that same mold. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpz4a3Ej2ygy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
