libopts

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:54:52 +0100
rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 20:00 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > The libopts package has no owners.list entry. 
> > It's files were cvs rm'ed a while back: 
> > 
> > revision 1.4
> > date: 2006/11/02 21:21:57;  author: pfj;  state: dead;  lines: +0 -0
> > 
> > Removing package - now part of autogen
> >         libopts/Makefile libopts/import.log libopts/FC-5/Makefile
> >         libopts/FC-5/branch libopts/FC-5/libopts.spec
> >         libopts/FC-5/sources libopts/FC-6/Makefile
> > libopts/FC-6/branch libopts/FC-6/libopts.spec libopts/FC-6/sources
> >         libopts/devel/Makefile libopts/devel/libopts.spec
> >         libopts/devel/sources
> > 
> > Of course since there is no bugzilla component and pfj doesn't seem
> > to be around, it's hard to know what is going on... 
> > 
> > unless someone tells me otherwise I am going to place a dead.package
> > file in libopts/FC-5/, libopts/FC-6, libopts/devel/ and mark it as
> > Retired and request it's removal from the repos. 
> > (I will do this tomorrow)
> > 
> > Did it really become a part of autogen on all those branches at the
> > same time?
> Well, it's a bit more complicated.
> 
> libopts has always been part of autogen. Its upstream sources are part
> of autogen. However libopts also had been shipped as a separate
> standalone library package.

ok

> 
> IIRC, at some point in FE's history, pfj had submitted libopts and
> libopts managed to make it into FE.
> 
> Later he submitted autogen, which pulled-in its own copy of libopts
> and therefore had conflicted with libopts. 
> 
> He then decided to drop the standalone libopts, and to provide it from
> inside of autogen. Also, neither autogen's upstream wanted to change
> autogen to use a separate libopts, nor did pfj want to modify autogen
> to using a standalone libopts instead of the bundled version.
> 
> => At some point in history, we once had separate libopts packages,
> now we only have autogen and no libopts-devel nor virtual packages
> inside of autogen to "fake libopts packages" (!).
> 
> I can't find this situation to be satisfactory and actually think this
> situation is messed up. But, AFAICT, nobody but autogen actually uses
> libopts, so this isn't much of a problem.

Yeah, what a mess. ;( 

> >  Should a owners.list entry be made for it anyhow? 
> Hmm, I am not sure about it. 

I guess not since it's removed. 

> 
> IMO, libopts actually is a separate package (With its own version
> numbering), but in the way libopts currently is packaged, it only is
> an internal autogen library not of much use to the public.

Right. Makes sense. 

ok, later tonight I am going to add dead.package to all the libopts
branches, and request libopts binary rpms be removed from all the repos
(yes, we are shipping libopts right now)

> Ralf

Thanks for the excellent info Ralf. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061222/d1ea6cb1/attachment.sig>