[Bug 1194212] Review Request: compat-libuv010 - Platform layer for node.js - compatibility library for nodejs 0.10.x

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194212



--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> ---
> Yeah you need to pass the full name of the shared object in order
> to use this compat package.  Fixed in compat-libuv010 dist-git.

Alternatively, it could store the .so symlink outside %_libdir (as to prevent a
conflict) and adjust the compiler/linker search via option -L. That's what the
.pc file would do also _normally_, i.e. only changing ${libdir} would be
necessary:

  libdir=/usr/lib64/compat-libuv010
  Libs: -L${libdir} -luv

Normally, the .pc file would also not relink with -lrt -ldl (from glibc!),
because libuv is linked with those already.


[compat packages]

> Is there any sort of guideline for this?

No. It used to be a tradition. Eventually, somebody breaks with the tradition
and "abuses" the naming scheme. Then the dist includes bad examples (such as an
appended -compat instead of a prefix). Other people base their work on those
examples and introduce even more misnamed compat packages (e.g. in the review
queue you can meet new packagers, who copy from existing Fedora packages, which
don't adhere to the guidelines). At Fedora there is no instance with interest
in covering each and every detail such as this.


> RHEL>=5?

RHEL5 is too old. It does not generate Requires for pkg-config
inter-dependencies either (i.e. RPM deps for the "Requires:" lines in the .pc
files!).

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config


> I didn't drop it because it's harmless and I wasn't sure which branch
> might still need it...

Well, if this will be released even for EPEL5, you may want to properly replace
the old package:

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages

That's the only well-defined way to get rid of the old libuv package always.
Else it's implementation-dependent whether a depsolver would look for the new
libuv package even if nothing needed it yet. Also keep in mind that plain "rpm"
evaluates Obsoletes tags when installing/updating packages manually.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]