On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 16:42 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/10/2015 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > I would like to propose that the no-bundled-libraries policy be > > amended as follows: "Any package that has an existing mechanism to > > link against a shared system library and functions correctly when > > doing so must link against that library and not bundle it > > internally. > > Any package whose upstream releases cannot link against a shared > > system library (or are incompatible with the version in Fedora) may > > bundle that library (without requiring a special exemption) but > > MUST > > add Provides: bundled(<libname>) = <version> in the spec file for > > each > > known bundled library.(This will allow us to track down the > > bundling > > when we need to). Package maintainers should continue attempt to > > engage upstream to support linking against shared system libraries > > wherever possible, due to the advantages it provides the package > > maintainer." > > Is <libname> the name of the SRPM which provides the system version > of > the library? Exact implementation TBD. I didn't want to get too far into the technical details. Assume it to be a generally agreed-upon format. > > How do you propose to resolve symbol conflicts if both the system > library and the bundled library are loaded into the same process? > The > current ELF linking scheme lacks good support for bundling libraries > whose exported symbols have not been mangled in some way. > I expect such cases to be rare and dealt with on an as-needed basis. Generally, projects either bundle or don't. The fuzzy area might be with plugins, I guess.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
