On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 06:38:12PM +0200, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:53:10PM +0200, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:30:35PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 08:18:42PM +0000, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > Uwe Kleine-König commented on a discussion: https://salsa.debian.org/ukleinek/sparse/-/merge_requests/2#note_185155 > > > > > > > > There is still another issue that popped up in the meantime: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/966706 > > > > > > Hmmm, I think that a corner of my mind was silently worried it > > > will happen. > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > > > - add a Conflicts: biosquid > > > > (this is the ugliest option) > > > > - rename sindex to something else > > > > - convince the bioquid people to rename their sindex > > > > - stop shipping sindex > > > > > > > > For now I will go for "stop shipping sindex", do you have an opinion for a long-term plan? > > > > > > [+CC to sindex's author] > > > > > > Not really. > > > Would it be easy to install it under the name 'sparse-sindex' or > > > 'sparse-index'? > > > > > > One thing I would like (in some future release) is to split > > > the sparse package at least in 2: > > > * one with sparse itself > > > - it has no dependencies (except the libc, a compiler compatible > > > with gcc and GNU make for the build) > > > - maybe cgcc should be included in the package too (which would > > > add a dependency on perl) > > > * one with the others tools > > > - but maybe it would even be better to the big ones in their > > > own packages with their own dependencies) > > > But this would not really solve the problem here. > > > > Renaming of sindex was an option for me, but since you have a plan > > to split the package anyway, then I think it's better to do so. I tried to > > use the libsparse.a and it looks like it works fine [1]. > > > > I spoke with Oleg Nesterov and he also does not mind moving this utility > > to a separate repository. > > > > [1] https://github.com/legionus/sindex > > Oleg pointed out to me that my email is not entirely clear :) > > My email does not mean at all that I moved the utility to a separate > repository. I made a proof-of-concept. > > Don't get me wrong, I don't mind renaming the utility. This is a good > short term solution but to be honest I don't like the name 'sparse-sindex' > because it is very long. Can we think of something shorter ? > > Also, could you tell us more about your plan for future releases ? > How do you plan to split the repository ? Ah sorry, it's just a misunderstanding. The context of my email wasn't very clear. But no worries, I have absolutely no intentions to split the repository (that would be very annoying for everybody). I was only talking about, maybe, in some future, split the *package* at distro level. For example, currently Debian has already 2 packages for sparse: one, called 'sparse', with almost everything, and another one only with 'test-inspect', called 'sparse-test-inspect'. In any case, I don't have any precise plan, and distro packaging is anyway something to be decided by the distros. So, if anything will done in this direction, it will be done in collaboration of the distros and anyone involved. For the name, I'm also don't like 'sparse-sindex', but it would just have been an easy way to avoid the name conflict in Debian packages (I understand that no such conflict exist with Fedora because 'biosquid' only exists for Debian). Best regards, -- Luc
