Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 09:46 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
The guidelines now say "no noarch packages". What about packages such as
lat, that are already in Extras as noarch and don't contain any
arch-specific AOTs?
The meeting log mentions that there are probably very few packages that
contain pre-built AOTs (as opposed to glue-libraries which plainly go
into %{_libdir}). The problem resides in the fact that the system
administrator can choose to compile AOTs after installation of the
package. Due to the fact that mono will only find AOTs that are in the
same directory as the .dlls, the directory that the .dlls are in has to
be the right one for an ELF shared object on that platform. This
means /usr/lib for x86 and /usr/lib64 for x86_64.
It does, however, install an mcs-built .dll and .exe in %{_prefix}/lib.
It would need to be changed to %{_libdir} and non-noarch. The contents
of the lat package may well be arch independent but doing this seems to
be the least evil course to pursue WRT mono's limitations. This is also
one of the issues that caused Debian to move mono from /usr/share
to /usr/lib.
Is there anything technically wrong with this other than not lining up
with the guidelines?
Hopefully the first paragraph explained that. If so, I'll try to merge
that explanation into the guidelines.
Thanks for the explanation. I think it's very useful for guidelines to
include the rationale behind them. It helps people to understand them
and is also useful in determining whether an exception to the guidelines
should be made, or indeed if the guidelines need updating to cover some
case that hadn't been considered before.
I've now updated lat to use %{_libdir} instead of %{_prefix}/lib and be
arch-specific:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/lat/lat.spec?root=extras&rev=1.5&view=markup
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
