Packaging .c files in a non-devel package

[Christophe de Dinechin]

Hello,

I’m currently working on a Fedora package for make-it-quick (https://github.com/c3d/make-it-quick), a make-only build system with basic auto-configuration.

rpmlint complains about shipping .c files in a non -devel package. The package does contains several small .c files that are used for autoconfiguration.

One option would be to rename the package as “make-it-quick-devel”, but that seems a bit redundant given that the whole point of the package is to be a development tool.

Another option would be to rename the files to use some custom extension for configuration sources. But that seems more like obfuscation, and I don’t like doing that just to silence rpmlint.

Can you suggest a good approach?

Thanks
Christophe de Dinechin

[Dan Čermák]

Hi Christophe,

since the .c files appear to be fundamental for the functionality of
make-it-quick, I'd rather silence this one specific check via an
rpmlintrc file instead of renaming them or converting this into a -devel
package.

Renaming them is probably a lot more work and calling it -devel will
confuse end users. Both are imho not worth it just for the sake of
silencing a single rpmlint warning.

Cheers,

Dan

Christophe de Dinechin  writes:
> Hello,
>
> I’m currently working on a Fedora package for make-it-quick (https://github.com/c3d/make-it-quick), a make-only build system with basic auto-configuration.
>
> rpmlint complains about shipping .c files in a non -devel package. The package does contains several small .c files that are used for autoconfiguration.
>
> One option would be to rename the package as “make-it-quick-devel”, but that seems a bit redundant given that the whole point of the package is to be a development tool.
>
> Another option would be to rename the files to use some custom extension for configuration sources. But that seems more like obfuscation, and I don’t like doing that just to silence rpmlint.
>
> Can you suggest a good approach?
>
> Thanks
> Christophe de Dinechin
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Fabio Valentini]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:19 Dan Čermák 
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> since the .c files appear to be fundamental for the functionality of
> make-it-quick, I'd rather silence this one specific check via an
> rpmlintrc file instead of renaming them or converting this into a -devel
> package.
>
> Renaming them is probably a lot more work and calling it -devel will
> confuse end users. Both are imho not worth it just for the sake of
> silencing a single rpmlint warning.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> Christophe de Dinechin  writes:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I’m currently working on a Fedora package for make-it-quick (
>
> https://github.com/c3d/make-it-quick), a make-only build system with
> basic auto-configuration.
> > rpmlint complains about shipping .c files in a non -devel package. The
>
> package does contains several small .c files that are used for
> autoconfiguration.
> > One option would be to rename the package as “make-it-quick-devel”, but
>
> that seems a bit redundant given that the whole point of the package is to
> be a development tool.
> > Another option would be to rename the files to use some custom extension
>
> for configuration sources. But that seems more like obfuscation, and I
> don’t like doing that just to silence rpmlint.
> > Can you suggest a good approach?

Hi,

I think there is (or at least, there used to be) a section in the packaging
guidelines which explicitly mentions that including both .c and .h files in
non-devel packages is fine (and indeed, expected) for compilers and build
tools which need those files at runtime.

Fabio
> > Thanks
> > Christophe de Dinechin
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE/2KDnDCX6+IOiSay5jLDOAYQ0cUFAlyKHHAACgkQ5jLDOAYQ
> 0cUbSw//TItZpGy+aRHQTCsr5NvwoJAUwy4+U7tPTAZWFMia0Vl9p0Qxv7Pzav7F
> 8XTlLIBbwLZ0wVkYLAOu/HhY5qpl11L/1JwjbW4YkLPlqn3SBRzxgLeV9/Zp3Iqk
> 4Ghrk1Dj2vTDwmYejlpRkjl/X228DvIzrXXuLnhuEFFWuXutV+le0pW4T2Uwnkx4
> AKseQ+7GwR24buGNdwKEDB5E30DOgzJ2HR/MraVNbgpH8D9bWNpIgx9xl66d6caM
> dt8/f1ehhhZgG3XvgAHNaxYBhn3dXubBQk4ZoWQHRtFaouLbZtyEoBrJzUW73Zoe
> v77j5Ihv7Pf5WKe6mVGmpKs27zxLhOEA0ibwYYuaVeO9lz2mbxCZKbnz3inHSSa7
> BFuWrRNGWN6aYhF9dVj6xIopbq6YWbaxBwwm5ehy79WrGhWCkg8jKIpbddjqiPMz
> 7vB9Q3noXsvav4q4O0PAPoTprK5SdWjaIoLmPuudbS2kqYPgo3S3XA62M7s63iMj
> A6WQOBgjEqPUeobZRPwlCKqW4m8ZtRicTofqEBpqbX+WRBcl+BQnmz0MQmuMMufE
> Byq96S0kVRLkQir7zp1zXrRFt5kU+S6tAoHjhB7MKCoyanS8q4GvM5O1DcGBqQpm
> wzAm1AGUEy6/R9sdV4NTuwNXLbdSz0lTqFnOF/rXbTSdQDYgxZ4=
> =LpdF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----_______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Felix Schwarz]

Am 14.03.19 um 13:08 schrieb Fabio Valentini:
> I think there is (or at least, there used to be) a section in the packaging
> guidelines which explicitly mentions that including both .c and .h files in
> non-devel packages is fine (and indeed, expected) for compilers and build
> tools which need those files at runtime.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages :
> There are some notable exceptions to this packaging model, specifically:
> compilers often include development files in the main package because
> compilers are themselves only used for software development, thus, a
> split package model does not make any sense.

Felix

[Christophe de Dinechin]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 23:57, Felix Schwarz  wrote:
>
> Am 14.03.19 um 13:08 schrieb Fabio Valentini:
> > I think there is (or at least, there used to be) a section in the packaging
> > guidelines which explicitly mentions that including both .c and .h files in
> > non-devel packages is fine (and indeed, expected) for compilers and build
> > tools which need those files at runtime.
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages :
> > There are some notable exceptions to this packaging model, specifically:
> > compilers often include development files in the main package because
> > compilers are themselves only used for software development, thus, a
> > split package model does not make any sense.

Thank you for pointing that out. I’ll follow the rpmlintrc approach to silence the warning, then.

Christophe
> Felix
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]