On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 15:19 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > 13.06.2014 01:42, Adam Williamson пишет: > > On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 18:56 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living > > > within the > > > gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from > > > the gcc sources, and not packaged. > > > > > > Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and > > > ship it in a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a > > > bundling exception request? > > So in writing a reply to this, I noticed the guidelines around > > this are actually fairly unclear and subject to interpretation. > > > > The section on this topic from > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines reads: > > > > "Duplication of system libraries > > > > A package should not include or build against a local copy of a > > library that exists on a system. The package should be patched to > > use the system libraries. This prevents old bugs and security > > holes from living on after the core system libraries have been > > fixed. > > > > In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term > > 'library' includes: compiled third party source code resulting in > > shared or static linkable files, interpreted third party source > > code such as Python, PHP and others. At this time JavaScript > > intended to be served to a web browser on another computer is > > specifically exempted from this but this will likely change in the > > future. > > > > Note that for C and C++ there's only one "system" in Fedora but > > for some other languages we have parallel stacks. For instance, > > python, python3, jython, and pypy are all implementations of the > > python language but they are separate interpreters with slightly > > different implementations of the language. Each stack is > > considered its own "system" and can each contain its own copy of a > > library." > > > > *entirely* clear, though, really. > > > > The page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging > > :No_Bundled_Libraries has all sorts of rationale and process > > stuff, but still no clear definition of precisely what it is that > > constitutes a "bundled library". > > > > Even more confusingly, > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging > > :Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries seems to have a rather different > > definition from that given on Packaging:Guidelines. It reads: > > > > "(bundled libraries being defined as libraries which exist and are > > mantained independently, whether or not they are packaged > > separately for Fedora)" > > > > to me, that seems fundamentally different from the definition that > > is somewhat unclearly implied on the Packaging:Guidelines page. > > > > Has this been considered before? Is there a superior definition > > somewhere, or an accepted interpretation which is consistent with > > both pages? > > > > Do we in fact need a section in Packaging:Guidelines and then two > > separate 'subsidiary' pages all on the topic of bundled libraries? > > Would it make more sense to combine all the details onto a single > > subsidiary page and have Packaging:Guidelines just have a very > > short sort of 'summary' and a link to that one subsidiary page? > > Would that reduce the likelihood of confusion? > > > > Thanks! > > > > I've seen several cases in the Real World where 'bundled' > > libraries that are not a part of the Fedora repositories were > > considered to be OK under the policy, which is a possible > > interpretation of the policy as given on Packaging:Guidelines, but > > doesn't really seem to be a possible interpretation of the policy > > as given on Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries (as it > > explicitly states "whether or not they are packaged separately for > > Fedora"). This could have considerable implementations for webapps > > if it were interpreted strictly, I think. > Sorry for the old thread. > But it is very interesting question to clearly determine "bundled > library" to which returning happened again and again. > Does it hang again now or something indeed changed? Yeah, I'm still interested in other people's thoughts on this, I rather expected it to get more traction when first posted. I guess I'll try one more bump (this one) and if still no-one bites, we can file an FPC ticket, perhaps. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
