[Bug 2115560] Review Request: DirectX-Headers - Direct3D 12 headers

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115560

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kwizart@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> ---
I've packaged the project without looking at existing review
https://dl.kwizart.net/review/DirectX-Headers.spec


This package obviously isn't noarch as it provides a static archive (compiled
with gcc-c++). But as no debug information are extracted from static archives,
there is a need to disable debug_package (and even prevent strip from touching
the produced static archives).

About -devel/-static sub-packages, it's a moot situation IMHO:
This project relies on libd3d12.so/libd3d12core.so/libdxcore.so libraries
exposed by the WSL2 sub-system by Windows as a special directory
(/usr/lib/wsl/lib) to the given Linux userspace.
This DirectX-Headers project, hence, doesn't provided theses shared libraries
implementation at all and the static archives aren't even a minimal version of
theses. So this projects hardly fall into our category of a -devel (and
-static) sub-package, as it will miss the implementation of the library itself.
Instead, it provides a stub loader via the static archives.
So it's not even a headers only package.

So to sum-up:
- Not a -devel because it misses a proper implementation in a library
- Not a -static because it wouldn't used to distinguishes between shared/static
library and the former is missing.
- Not even a headers only because it provides a arched static archive.

My point would be to just package the project as-is and acknowledge that it
doesn't fall in our previous categories. I would like to also point that this
is clearly a development package and it shouldn't ends in end-users system by
any means, so this question has very little impact.


On my side, I'm still at a testing point about WSL2. Here a short todo:
- To verify if lto is relevant here (is disabled in mesa still today).
- others components to leverage wsl2 support.
- Compare ubuntu 22.04 support
- Documentation of the process to migrate from koji generated vanilla docker
image to a WSL2 enabled counterpart.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115560

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202115560%23c6
--
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux