7:25 a.m.
I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
* Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-4
- make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
software, as described in this blog entry:
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
"benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
different.
josh
7:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:25 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
* Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-4
- make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
software, as described in this blog entry:
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
"benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
different.
josh
Would you rather a curl-compat-7.18.1 package went through the review
process to drop it's library on the filesystem?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
7:35 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:31 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:25 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
>
> * Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
7.18.2-4
> - make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
>
> Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
> software, as described in this blog entry:
>
> http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
>
> There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
> "benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
> certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
> different.
>
> josh
Would you rather a curl-compat-7.18.1 package went through the review
process to drop it's library on the filesystem?
If there are open source packages that could benefit from it, yes. If
not, then there's really no need for it at all.
josh
8 a.m.
On (12/08/08 08:25), Josh Boyer wrote:
I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
* Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-4
- make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
software, as described in this blog entry:
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
"benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
different.
josh
The change just provides some backward compatibility. It's minimal.
I really think it's not important why the change was made. Since it
doesn't break anything and it doesn't waste disk space. It may be
useful for some dead opensource projects that use the older version.
If we remove everything that helps prop stuff work we should
remove libflashsupport and a bunch of other stuff.
--
NV
8:35 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:00 +0300, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
On (12/08/08 08:25), Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
>
> * Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
7.18.2-4
> - make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
>
> Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
> software, as described in this blog entry:
>
> http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
>
> There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
> "benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
> certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
> different.
>
> josh
>
The change just provides some backward compatibility. It's minimal.
I really think it's not important why the change was made. Since it
doesn't break anything and it doesn't waste disk space. It may be
useful for some dead opensource projects that use the older version.
There are better ways to do this. Providing a compat-curl package is
the proper way. The way it was done now is just a hack with the sole
intention of making flash work again.
If we remove everything that helps prop stuff work we should
remove libflashsupport and a bunch of other stuff.
You would have no objection from me there, but I'm not pushing for that
at this time.
josh
8:42 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:35 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:00 +0300, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
<snip>
> The change just provides some backward compatibility. It's
minimal.
> I really think it's not important why the change was made. Since it
> doesn't break anything and it doesn't waste disk space. It may be
> useful for some dead opensource projects that use the older version.
There are better ways to do this. Providing a compat-curl package is
the proper way. The way it was done now is just a hack with the sole
intention of making flash work again.
A compat-curl project that would contain duplicated/unmaintained code?
What's the point of this since libcurl didn't break ABI, and only
changed soname?
This is getting a bit too far.
8:46 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:42 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:35 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:00 +0300, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
<snip>
> > The change just provides some backward compatibility. It's minimal.
> > I really think it's not important why the change was made. Since it
> > doesn't break anything and it doesn't waste disk space. It may be
> > useful for some dead opensource projects that use the older version.
>
> There are better ways to do this. Providing a compat-curl package is
> the proper way. The way it was done now is just a hack with the sole
> intention of making flash work again.
A compat-curl project that would contain duplicated/unmaintained code?
What's the point of this since libcurl didn't break ABI, and only
changed soname?
What's the point of adding it at all then? If the ABI didn't change,
then apps can just rebuild against the newer libcurl.
This is getting a bit too far.
I don't think it is. But if I'm overridden by FESCo, I won't continue
to make a fuss.
josh
9:58 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 09:35:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:00 +0300, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
> The change just provides some backward compatibility. It's minimal.
> I really think it's not important why the change was made. Since it
> doesn't break anything and it doesn't waste disk space. It may be
> useful for some dead opensource projects that use the older version.
There are better ways to do this. Providing a compat-curl package is
the proper way. The way it was done now is just a hack with the sole
intention of making flash work again.
If the ABI is consistent across the SONAME bump, then it's a hack that
supports any pre-existing binaries that users have. The best way we
could serve those users with a compat package would be to ship another
copy of the latest version of curl (so they get the bugfixes) but with a
changed SONAME - at which point we'd be shipping two identical source
packages that produce binary packages that differ only in library name.
In doing so, we'd be increasing the cost of security updates.
What does that actually win us?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
9:51 a.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
* Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-4
- make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
software, as described in this blog entry:
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
"benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
different.
josh
You are proposing removing a zero maintenance 2496 byte file that would
permanently break Flash 10 forever in Fedora.
They are not violating any licenses like NVidia, and we seriously are
not going out of our way to allow it to work. Extremist views are
rarely the most productive.
Warren Togami
wtogami(a)redhat.com
9:59 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Warren Togami <warren(a)togami.com> wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
>
> * Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-4
> - make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
>
> Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
> software, as described in this blog entry:
>
> http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
>
> There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
> "benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
> certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
> different.
>
> josh
>
You are proposing removing a zero maintenance 2496 byte file that would
permanently break Flash 10 forever in Fedora.
They are not violating any licenses like NVidia, and we seriously are not
going out of our way to allow it to work. Extremist views are rarely the
most productive.
exactly the change does not break anything and does not make the
package harder to maintain.
the only thing it does is make life easier for our user @ ~0 cost....
10:46 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:59 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Warren Togami
<warren(a)togami.com> wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to formally request that this curl change be reverted:
>>
>> * Mon Aug 11 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
7.18.2-4
>> - make miniature library for libcurl.so.3
>>
>> Due to the fact that it was simply made to accommodate proprietary
>> software, as described in this blog entry:
>>
>> http://wtogami.livejournal.com/27778.html
>>
>> There are at least a dozen other proprietary applications that could
>> "benefit" from making similar changes to other packages, and we
>> certainly wouldn't make those changes for them. Flash should be no
>> different.
>>
>> josh
>>
>
> You are proposing removing a zero maintenance 2496 byte file that would
> permanently break Flash 10 forever in Fedora.
>
> They are not violating any licenses like NVidia, and we seriously are not
> going out of our way to allow it to work. Extremist views are rarely the
> most productive.
exactly the change does not break anything and does not make the
package harder to maintain.
the only thing it does is make life easier for our user @ ~0 cost....
We've just had a very long IRC conversation on this that I don't care to
rehash entirely, so I'll summarize:
If there are legitimate reasons to have the older soname library in
Fedora, it should be done properly as a compat-curl package. That is
what I am going to press for in the FESCo meeting tomorrow.
(There is also the possibility to have compat-curl done as a subpackage
of curl. That might be acceptable but we'll see how the discussion goes
tomorrow.)
josh
6:24 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If there are legitimate reasons to have the older soname library in
Fedora, it should be done properly as a compat-curl package. That is
what I am going to press for in the FESCo meeting tomorrow.
(There is also the possibility to have compat-curl done as a subpackage
of curl. That might be acceptable but we'll see how the discussion goes
tomorrow.)
Now that the change has been undone, what is the plan for providing
libcurl.so.3? Apologies if this has been asked before, but searching
the archives did not show anything. No bugzilla review request either.
(if anyone is talking to Adobe requesting a recompile, then the need
for a compat library is moot, naturally)
Thanks,
--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/
6:29 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Michel Salim <michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the change has been undone, what is the plan for providing
libcurl.so.3? Apologies if this has been asked before, but searching
the archives did not show anything. No bugzilla review request either.
What has been undone? FESCo voted to leave this alone., So unless some
other change has snuck in that I don't know about (I haven't looked),
then this workaround is alive and well.
6:43 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Michel Salim
<michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the change has been undone, what is the plan for providing
> libcurl.so.3? Apologies if this has been asked before, but searching
> the archives did not show anything. No bugzilla review request either.
What has been undone? FESCo voted to leave this alone., So unless some
other change has snuck in that I don't know about (I haven't looked),
then this workaround is alive and well.
I've been excluding *curl* from my update ever since Rawhide went back
live. The changelog for curl indicated that the change has been
reverted by Spot:
* Fri Aug 22 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 7.18.2-5
- undo mini libcurl.so.3
But if as Warren said, Adobe is coming out with a new build, then as
long as there is one that installs out of the box for Fedora 10 final,
everything is fine.
--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/
6:59 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:29:33PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Michel Salim
<michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the change has been undone, what is the plan for providing
> libcurl.so.3? Apologies if this has been asked before, but searching
> the archives did not show anything. No bugzilla review request either.
What has been undone? FESCo voted to leave this alone., So unless some
other change has snuck in that I don't know about (I haven't looked),
then this workaround is alive and well.
Upstream curl pointed out that the ABI between .4 and .3 was not the same
and that the soname change was done on purpose. Spot reverted this a week
or so ago.
josh
6:30 p.m.
Michel Salim wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Josh Boyer
<jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are legitimate reasons to have the older soname library in
> Fedora, it should be done properly as a compat-curl package. That is
> what I am going to press for in the FESCo meeting tomorrow.
>
> (There is also the possibility to have compat-curl done as a subpackage
> of curl. That might be acceptable but we'll see how the discussion goes
> tomorrow.)
>
Now that the change has been undone, what is the plan for providing
libcurl.so.3? Apologies if this has been asked before, but searching
the archives did not show anything. No bugzilla review request either.
(if anyone is talking to Adobe requesting a recompile, then the need
for a compat library is moot, naturally)
Adobe said their next build will use either libcurl.so.3 or
libcurl.so.4, whatever is available on the system. I suppose this means
wait until their next public build.
Warren
5712
days inactive
5733
days old
15 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Bastien Nocera -
drago01 -
Jesse Keating -
Jon Stanley -
Josh Boyer -
Matthew Garrett -
Michel Salim -
Nikolay Vladimirov -
Warren Togami -
Warren Togami