Hans de Goede wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,
I'm currently working on upgrading asc (Advanced Strategic Command)
to 2.0.1.0 When packaging asc-1.16.4.0, I also packaged SDLmm-0.1.8
and paragui-1.0.4.
[snip information on SDLmm and paragui being dead upstream. Bugfixes
present in the copies in asc. Merging of paragui non-trivial due to
reformat of the source.]
Are there any objections against this?
The options I see in decreasing order of preference are:
1) Get the asc maintainers to take over maintenance of SDLmm and paragui
They have in a way, but since there are no other users and no upstream,
they are maintaining them in tree, in a sense they have become part of ASC.
Have you asked upstream if they're willing to make separate
tarballs/releases for SDLmm and paragui since they are the de facto
maintainers of those code bases at this point?
2) Create paragui/paragui-devel and SDL-mm/SDL-mm-devel packages from
the asc source tarball.
To what purpose? There are no other users, if you can name one package
out there which could be packaged for Fedora which uses either of them I
would fully agree, which is why I created a seperate package for SDLmm
in the first place. But there are _no_ other users. Try googling for
paragui, the first 2 links are dead upstream websites then a domain
squater, then some old mailinglist posts and then we go into rpmsearch
hits.
SDLmm, the same the last mailinglist post is from dec 2005!
So I challenge you, give my another (potential) package that needs them
and I agree.
That's not great reasoning. If asc maintained those libraries out of
tree and made releases as separate tarballs, you'd continue to make
separate packages, right? It's not a question of how many consumers
there are but of how useful the library is outside of the program.
Since these libraries were released outside of the program before and
you haven't said anything about the build scripts being changed just
bugfixes and code-formatting I have the impression that they would be
useful outside of asc. You could correct me on that by letting me know
that the asc fixes have made the two code bases dependent on each other
or some other technical reason that they aren't two separate codebases
that happen to be maintained in the same tree.
3) Use a private copy of SDL-mm and paragui inside the asc binary rpm.
Which would be the least work, not deviating from what upstream does
(wasn't our mantra upstream upstream upstream?) and has no downsides.
If a problem is serious enough we do deviate from upstream. For
instance, changing a package to build against system libraries is
certainly something that we do whether or not upstream. We also will
take the time to help upstream do the right thing rather than blindly
packaging what they hand us. In this case, it sure looks best to me to
build those libraries from upstream's tarball as system libraries and
then have the asc programs use those.
The downsides:
* if you make these private libraries of asc you then have all the
problems of static libraries should another program be created in the
future that makes use of their own copy of those libraries.
* There's no attempt to coordinate work on the libraries. Should
another developer decide they want to build something that uses
functionality that could be provided by SDl-mm or paragui they'll be
unaware that there is active maintenance of these libraries occurring
and will either fork their own copy or reinvent the wheel.
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
