Re: Re: dietlibc

[Frank Bergmann]

Hello,

I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be
unmaintained.
(http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/[e-mail]...)

What's the current status of dietlibc in Fedora and how can it be checked?
Last built was done by Jon Ciesla on 2013-03-27.

On Sun Mar 3 03:21:06 UTC 2013, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to 
> comply with the packaging guidelines and best practices, i.e.:
> Shared library build needs to be enabled. I see no reason to build this
>
> library as static only as Enrico is doing. We tolerate this where upstream 
> does not support shared builds at all, but this is not the case here.
> The main package should contain the shared library (and the documentation
>
> that's relevant at runtime, in particular COPYING) only. Right now it 
> contains some stuff which probably belongs into -devel.
> The main package must not require -devel as it does now.
> The -devel package should not contain the static library, which should
>
> instead be in a -static subpackage.
> The -lib package (which is currently not built by default, it contains the
>
> shared library if you enable shared build) should simply be the main 
> package. It doesn't make sense to have a -lib subpackage of a library.
> The -header subpackage should really be called -headers (There's more than
>
> one header! And it'd also be consistent with glibc.) or folded into -devel 
> (though then it can't be noarch anymore).

If you are actually looking for a maintainer and the policies/rules are
not too difficult then I would do this job (before you throw dietlibc out
of Fedora). :-)

best regards
Frank

dietlibc

[Jon Ciesla]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be
> unmaintained.
> (
> http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/[e-mail]...
> )
>
> What's the current status of dietlibc in Fedora and how can it be checked?
> Last built was done by Jon Ciesla on 2013-03-27.
>
> Unmaintained how?  Speaking as the current maintainer, my plans have been

to migrate any packages using it to glibc, but the keep dietlibc in the
distro for developer use.  I believe I've got that largely finished.  Is
there something you'd like to see done?

-J
> On Sun Mar 3 03:21:06 UTC 2013, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to
> > comply with the packaging guidelines and best practices, i.e.:
> > Shared library build needs to be enabled. I see no reason to build this
> >
> > library as static only as Enrico is doing. We tolerate this where
>
> upstream
> > does not support shared builds at all, but this is not the case here.
> > The main package should contain the shared library (and the
>
> documentation
> > that's relevant at runtime, in particular COPYING) only. Right now it
> > contains some stuff which probably belongs into -devel.
> > The main package must not require -devel as it does now.
> > The -devel package should not contain the static library, which should
> >
> > instead be in a -static subpackage.
> > The -lib package (which is currently not built by default, it contains
>
> the
> > shared library if you enable shared build) should simply be the main
> > package. It doesn't make sense to have a -lib subpackage of a library.
> > The -header subpackage should really be called -headers (There's more
>
> than
> > one header! And it'd also be consistent with glibc.) or folded into
>
> -devel
> > (though then it can't be noarch anymore).
>
> If you are actually looking for a maintainer and the policies/rules are
> not too difficult then I would do this job (before you throw dietlibc out
> of Fedora). :-)
>
> best regards
> Frank
> --
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

dietlibc

[Frank Bergmann]

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:56:59AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann <[1][e-mail]>
>    wrote:
>      Hello,
>      I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be
>      unmaintained.
>      ([2]http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/[e-mail]
>      roject.org/thread/BP7LYYNGQA2DDTNFNS3EJXX3AGNZRNAX/)
>      What's the current status of dietlibc in Fedora and how can it be checked?
>      Last built was done by Jon Ciesla on 2013-03-27.
>
> Unmaintained how?  Speaking as the current maintainer, my plans have been to

See URL. Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
"needing to have new maintainers and comaintainers for some packages
...
Note to potential new maintainers: although not mandatory, you may want to
open an optional re-review request as the spec files for some of these may
be very out of sync with the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
...
dietlibc (devel is still owned by ensc but maybe that was an oversight) 
"
> migrate any packages using it to glibc, but the keep dietlibc in the distro
>    for developer use.  I believe I've got that largely finished.  Is there
>    something you'd like to see done?

No, thanks. I just don't want to see it kicked out of Fedora. :-)
I'm glad that it actually has a maintainer.

dietlibc

[Jon Ciesla]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Frank Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:56:59AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann <[1]
>
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >      Hello,
> >      I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to
>
> be
> >  unmaintained.
> >  ([2]
>
> http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/[e-mail]
> >  roject.org/thread/BP7LYYNGQA2DDTNFNS3EJXX3AGNZRNAX/)
> >  What's the current status of dietlibc in Fedora and how can it be
>
> checked?
> >  Last built was done by Jon Ciesla on 2013-03-27.
> >
> > Unmaintained how?  Speaking as the current maintainer, my plans have
>
> been to
>
> See URL. Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> "needing to have new maintainers and comaintainers for some packages
> ...
> Note to potential new maintainers: although not mandatory, you may want to
> open an optional re-review request as the spec files for some of these may
> be very out of sync with the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
> ...
> dietlibc (devel is still owned by ensc but maybe that was an oversight)
> "
> > migrate any packages using it to glibc, but the keep dietlibc in the
>
> distro
> > for developer use.  I believe I've got that largely finished.  Is
>
> there
> > something you'd like to see done?
>
> No, thanks. I just don't want to see it kicked out of Fedora. :-)
> I'm glad that it actually has a maintainer.
>
> Ah.  Ok. :)  If you ever need anything, file a BZ.

-J
> --
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel