On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 15:16, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:50:38PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > > Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened layout
> > > > might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
> > > > /usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
> > >
> > > I'm not Axel, but I second this. ;)
> >
> > But please understand that we would then have chosen between
> > libfoundation and gnustep-base, e.g. only one would be allowed in
> > Fedora world. And thus only one subset of application packages would
> > survive.
> >
> > unflattened != multiarch
> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
>
> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
> incompatible with gnustep-base?
While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
specific libcombos to be built against.
> Anyway, here's an idea:
> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
which we must truncate back).
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpoZN3N1zh9B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
