Re: application and header files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:04:22 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:

> What do you find misleading about the review?

It has discussed headers that are not installed anywhere. I expected
to find a spec file that either deletes headers from the buildroot or
includes them in a non-devel package to begin with. Instead, the
reviewed package includes only an executable binary and no comments
on any API or library.

> Yes, the spec doesn't include the headers - my question is whether it
> should.

For that you would need to come up with a rationale. If you don't trust
upstream's distribution and default installation method, you need to
examine the sources and develop a theory why to package headers upstream
doesn't install by default.

This program is built from a set of C source files, where it is very
common to use internal headers as soon as the code grows and is split into
multiple reusable pieces. Most of the headers are useless without their
corresponding .c source files.

> They are the headers for the code in the binary itself. How could we
> predict whether any user of this package might want to build another
> program on top of this one that does link with this binary?

Have you run into any package that does that?

We don't predict anything like that. It is a very weird idea in general.
If someone wanted to reuse code from this package, copying source code
files is the way it's done with FLOSS. And the src.rpm packages are good
enough for that. Alternatively, someone would develop a reusable library
together with a stable API/ABI, and that could be packaged separately.
We don't repackage the entire source files (from a src.rpm) in -devel
packages (or other subpackages).

> I'm more asking for clarification on what the packaging requirements
> are since fedora-review's text seemed to suggest that the files are
> required but I did not get that impression after reading the packaging
> guidelines. Since I do not see requirements for these headers in the
> guidelines I'm inclined to +1 the package, but I wanted to double check
> with the list first.

The fedora-review tool examines the buildroot contents, the files that are
included in the package(s). It doesn't care about uninstalled files.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux