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

Re: Request permission to break always use system libs rule for asc-2.0

Hans de Goede wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,

I'm currently working on upgrading asc (Advanced Strategic Command) to When packaging asc-, I also packaged SDLmm-0.1.8 and paragui-1.0.4.

[snip information on SDLmm and paragui being dead upstream.  Bugfixes
 present in the copies in asc.  Merging of paragui non-trivial due to
 reformat of the source.]

Are there any objections against this?

The options I see in decreasing order of preference are:

1) Get the asc maintainers to take over maintenance of SDLmm and paragui

They have in a way, but since there are no other users and no upstream, they are maintaining them in tree, in a sense they have become part of ASC.

Have you asked upstream if they're willing to make separate tarballs/releases for SDLmm and paragui since they are the de facto maintainers of those code bases at this point?

2) Create paragui/paragui-devel and SDL-mm/SDL-mm-devel packages from the asc source tarball.

To what purpose? There are no other users, if you can name one package out there which could be packaged for Fedora which uses either of them I would fully agree, which is why I created a seperate package for SDLmm in the first place. But there are _no_ other users. Try googling for paragui, the first 2 links are dead upstream websites then a domain squater, then some old mailinglist posts and then we go into rpmsearch hits.

SDLmm, the same the last mailinglist post is from dec 2005!

So I challenge you, give my another (potential) package that needs them and I agree.

That's not great reasoning. If asc maintained those libraries out of tree and made releases as separate tarballs, you'd continue to make separate packages, right? It's not a question of how many consumers there are but of how useful the library is outside of the program.

Since these libraries were released outside of the program before and you haven't said anything about the build scripts being changed just bugfixes and code-formatting I have the impression that they would be useful outside of asc. You could correct me on that by letting me know that the asc fixes have made the two code bases dependent on each other or some other technical reason that they aren't two separate codebases that happen to be maintained in the same tree.

3) Use a private copy of SDL-mm and paragui inside the asc binary rpm.

Which would be the least work, not deviating from what upstream does (wasn't our mantra upstream upstream upstream?) and has no downsides.

If a problem is serious enough we do deviate from upstream. For instance, changing a package to build against system libraries is certainly something that we do whether or not upstream. We also will take the time to help upstream do the right thing rather than blindly packaging what they hand us. In this case, it sure looks best to me to build those libraries from upstream's tarball as system libraries and then have the asc programs use those.

The downsides:
* if you make these private libraries of asc you then have all the problems of static libraries should another program be created in the future that makes use of their own copy of those libraries.

* There's no attempt to coordinate work on the libraries. Should another developer decide they want to build something that uses functionality that could be provided by SDl-mm or paragui they'll be unaware that there is active maintenance of these libraries occurring and will either fork their own copy or reinvent the wheel.


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