yaml-cpp: Better to only build static libraries?

[Richard Shaw]

Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.

Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
static library, at least in EPEL...

Thanks,
Richard

[Rex Dieter]

Richard Shaw wrote:
> Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
> bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.
>
> Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
> applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
> static library, at least in EPEL...

Dealing with an upstream that doesn't maintain a stable ABI is indeed 
problematic. :-/

Your approach (static lib) would be one way to possibly mitigate that.

Others: 
* engage your upstream about being more mindful about ABI and bumping 
library sonames when changes are introduced.  It's possible this may be 
unintentional and a bug worth fixing (if they knew about it).

-- Rex

[Kevin Kofler]

Richard Shaw wrote:
> Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
> bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.
>
> Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
> applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
> static library, at least in EPEL...

I can't speak for EPEL, but in Fedora I'd rather you just bump the soname 
and rebuild the applications using the library when it is needed.

Kevin Kofler

[Richard Shaw]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Kevin Kofler 
wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
> > bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.
> >
> > Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
> > applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
> > static library, at least in EPEL...
>
> I can't speak for EPEL, but in Fedora I'd rather you just bump the soname
> and rebuild the applications using the library when it is needed.

That's what I did but on EPEL a lot of people develop their own business
applications, which of course I can't and shouldn't rebuild, and in many
cases they're "validated" so changing is very painful.

For now I reverted back to 0.5.1 in EPEL (with -static subpackage) and
created a COPR for those who want to work with the newer version.

Thanks,
Richard