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 <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt;
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