Sorry, resending because the original message was rejected by the mailing list. Hi Lukas, Lukas Javorsky <ljavorsk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > I'm currently maintaining the zlib package across Fedora and Red Hat products. > > I like the proposal for the zlib-ng package, there are just a few questions for @Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <mailto:tmachado@xxxxxxxxxx> : > 1) Just to clarify, do you want to have two separate packages (zlib-ng and e.g. zlib-ng-compat) in Fedora? One with the `-DZLIB_COMPAT=ON` option enabled and one without it? Yes. While I do not have a personal preference, I believe it's important to provide the zlib-ng API for projects willing to use it instead of the zlib API. I'm open to other suggestions too, including building zlib-ng twice and distributing them in different sub-packages as suggested by Michel. Would you have any preferences? > 2) What is your point of view on maintaining these packages? You will be the main contact and I could be the secondary one? LGTM. Ali (in Cc.) has also demonstrated interest in this package too. I'd be happy to share this with both of you. > 3) Same as 2) but for CentOS Stream and RHEL products? Sorry, I'm afraid the decision on supporting RHEL products is beyond my pay grade. > Next, I have a few scary scenarios in my head, which I'm not sure how would be handled: Please share all of them! My experience maintaining long term libraries downstream is limited. > 1) When we decide to migrate from zlib to zlib-ng and zlib-ng-compat, the packages would still need to rewrite their code so they can use the pure (no compat) zlib-ng functions and libraries. How many of the packages will be able (and most importantly willing) to do that? I disagree that packages "need to rewrite their code". IMHO, most packages will probably keep using the zlib API and should magically link against the zlib-ng-compat package. > 2) There are 271 RPMs dependent on zlib in ELN repo (there will be more in the Fedora repo). It would mean that we would have to side-tag rebuild all of them when switching to the zlib-ng-compat package. It may be challenging. I'm planning to use the mass-prebuild tool on Copr first [1]. > If I understood something incorrectly please let me know, I'm trying to understand it completely, what is the plan here. It will be needed to be thoroughly documented in the Fedora Change. Agreed. > Overall, I think performance-wise this is a great idea. We just need to be cautious about the compatibility. Ack. [1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild -- Tulio Magno _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
