Hi Toshio, On 05/31/2011 11:43 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 09:01:00PM +0200, Christian Krause wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 05/31/2011 06:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> However, even if it would be easy for packages like "monodevelop", which >> contain only C# assemblies and no ELF libraries there may be problems >> with packages like f-spot, which contains mostly C# assemblies but also >> include one "glue code" ELF library. Should the package then be split? >> That sounds a little bit like overkill just for the purpose of having >> 100% pure correctness of the packages without solving any real problems. >> ;-) >> > Well, it seems like the problems with conflicts between x86 and x86_64 would > be solved by making noarch packages. The splitting of packages is just Since the mono runtime environment contains arch-dependent executables (e.g. /usr/bin/mono), it will never be possible to install both the x86 and the x86_64 stack on x86_64. So multi-arch seems to be impossible with mono. On the other hand, since the C# assemblies are exchangeable between x86 and x86_64, it should be possible to have a shared /usr/lib directory even without splitting the packages. If I have misunderstood the intention, please explain the use case in detail. > making a noarch subpackage so it's pretty straightforward. It doesn't seem > like too much overkill, is more correct as you point out, and is a natural > extension of the way pure C# would be packaged. Hm, just because a package contains arch-dependent and arch-independent libraries, this does not automatically call for separating the arch-independent parts into noarch packages. Just look at all python or perl packages which come with e.g. arch-independent python/perl parts/libraries and additionally contain ELF binary parts or not splitted. These packages are just then arch-dependent. So I currently don't see why we should do it otherwise for C# packages. > OTOH, with other languages (for instance python) only some things end up > multilibbed. For instance, python-libs (from the python package) is > multilib and pygtk2-devel is multilib (but not pygtk2 itself). > python-pycurl is an example of a package that is not multilibbed. So... eh, > your argument makes enough sense to me. Just to avoid misunderstandings: What do you specifically mean with multilibbed? The ability to install both packages (i686 and x86_64) on x86_64 without getting any conflicts? >> I have also verified this with the mono disassembler: >> ---------------------------------------------- >> # diff -u <(monodis >> /tmp/f-spot-0.8.2-1.fc14.i686/usr/lib/f-spot/TagLib.dll) <(monodis >> /tmp/f-spot-0.8.2-1.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/f-spot/TagLib.dll) >> --- /proc/self/fd/63 2011-05-31 20:57:01.172361683 +0200 >> +++ /proc/self/fd/62 2011-05-31 20:57:01.172361683 +0200 >> @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ >> >> .custom instance void class >> ApplicationBuildInformationAttribute::'.ctor'(string, string, string, >> string) = ( >> 01 00 0E 73 6F 75 72 63 65 2D 74 61 72 62 61 6C // >> ...source-tarbal >> - 6C 09 6C 69 6E 75 78 2D 67 6E 75 04 69 33 38 36 // >> l.linux-gnu.i386 >> - 17 32 30 31 30 2D 31 32 2D 33 30 20 31 39 3A 34 // >> .2010-12-30 19:4 >> - 35 3A 34 37 20 55 54 43 00 00 ) // >> 5:47 UTC.. >> + 6C 09 6C 69 6E 75 78 2D 67 6E 75 06 78 38 36 5F // >> l.linux-gnu.x86_ >> + 36 34 17 32 30 31 30 2D 31 32 2D 33 30 20 31 39 // >> 64.2010-12-30 19 >> + 3A 34 35 3A 33 32 20 55 54 43 00 00 ) // >> :45:32 UTC.. >> >> > Huh. That linux-gnu.i386 vs linux-gnu.x86_64 line seems a bit fishy but > apparently that's only informational, mono isn't doing anything with it? I have double-checked this: that is just a data structure containing some strings about the build host. Some C# projects use such kind of data structure and customize the strings during build time. AFAIK it has no run-time impact at all. > I don't see anything else that might be problematic in there. Can I treat this as the official approval from FPC - or how should I proceed from here? ;-) Best regards, Christian -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
