5:41 p.m.
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 00:20, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michel Salim <michel.sylvan <at> gmail.com> writes:
> - FHS, flattened (like Debian). We would need to override GNUstep-make
> to install under %{_libdir} rather than %{_prefix}/lib. It will
> require a customized openapp to handle multilib systems
I consider this to be the only way to really comply with the FHS as required by
the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
And as Axel rightly pointed out, binaries do not belong to /usr/bin/GNUstep/:
if they're intended to be run directly, they should be directly under /usr/bin,
otherwise they should be under /usr/libexec/GNUstep.
Sounds reasonable, +1.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
7:26 p.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 00:20, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michel Salim <michel.sylvan <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > - FHS, flattened (like Debian). We would need to override GNUstep-make
> > to install under %{_libdir} rather than %{_prefix}/lib. It will
> > require a customized openapp to handle multilib systems
>
> I consider this to be the only way to really comply with the FHS as required by
> the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
>
> And as Axel rightly pointed out, binaries do not belong to /usr/bin/GNUstep/:
> if they're intended to be run directly, they should be directly under /usr/bin,
> otherwise they should be under /usr/libexec/GNUstep.
Sounds reasonable, +1.
So the consensus so far seems to be for using a flattened layout.
Removing --disable-flattened from gnustep-make actually causes a much
tighter adherence to the FHS, with %{_bindir} and %{_libdir} not
containing any subdirectories.
The one problem I foresee is that application bundles also contain
data files. Putting them in %{_libdir}/GNUstep/Applications would mean
that installing 32-bit and 64-bit versions of a bundle result in the
data files being duplicated. This is probably acceptable, though.
I've summarized the discussion on the Wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/GNUstep
Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened layout
might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
/usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/
7:50 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 02:26, Michel Salim wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 00:20, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Michel Salim <michel.sylvan <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> > - FHS, flattened (like Debian). We would need to override GNUstep-make
>> > to install under %{_libdir} rather than %{_prefix}/lib. It will
>> > require a customized openapp to handle multilib systems
>>
>> I consider this to be the only way to really comply with the FHS as required by
>> the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
>>
>> And as Axel rightly pointed out, binaries do not belong to /usr/bin/GNUstep/:
>> if they're intended to be run directly, they should be directly under
/usr/bin,
>> otherwise they should be under /usr/libexec/GNUstep.
>
> Sounds reasonable, +1.
>
So the consensus so far seems to be for using a flattened layout.
Removing --disable-flattened from gnustep-make actually causes a much
tighter adherence to the FHS, with %{_bindir} and %{_libdir} not
containing any subdirectories.
The one problem I foresee is that application bundles also contain
data files. Putting them in %{_libdir}/GNUstep/Applications would mean
that installing 32-bit and 64-bit versions of a bundle result in the
data files being duplicated. This is probably acceptable, though.
If the data doesn't differ between 64bit and 32bit, it should be put
in /usr/share and symlinked where necessary.
I've summarized the discussion on the Wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/GNUstep
Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened layout
might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
/usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
I'm not Axel, but I second this. ;)
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
8:16 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:50:38PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened
layout
> might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
> /usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
I'm not Axel, but I second this. ;)
But please understand that we would then have chosen between
libfoundation and gnustep-base, e.g. only one would be allowed in
Fedora world. And thus only one subset of application packages would
survive.
unflattened != multiarch
unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
8:24 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 15:16, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:50:38PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened layout
> > might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
> > /usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
>
> I'm not Axel, but I second this. ;)
But please understand that we would then have chosen between
libfoundation and gnustep-base, e.g. only one would be allowed in
Fedora world. And thus only one subset of application packages would
survive.
unflattened != multiarch
unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
incompatible with gnustep-base?
Anyway, here's an idea:
Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
9:17 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 15:16, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:50:38PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> > > Axel, what do you think? Seems like keeping the unflattened layout
> > > might be too much trouble; if we are already flattening /usr/bin and
> > > /usr/lib*, might as well stick with a flattened layout after all.
> >
> > I'm not Axel, but I second this. ;)
>
> But please understand that we would then have chosen between
> libfoundation and gnustep-base, e.g. only one would be allowed in
> Fedora world. And thus only one subset of application packages would
> survive.
>
> unflattened != multiarch
> unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
> flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
incompatible with gnustep-base?
While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
specific libcombos to be built against.
Anyway, here's an idea:
Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
which we must truncate back).
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
4:39 p.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)atrpms.net> wrote:
> > unflattened != multiarch
> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
>
> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
> incompatible with gnustep-base?
While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
specific libcombos to be built against.
> Anyway, here's an idea:
> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
which we must truncate back).
So:
- binaries can be flattened
- library structure can be simplified:
currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
(remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)
or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?
If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.
--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/
2:30 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 05:39:37PM -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Axel Thimm
<Axel.Thimm(a)atrpms.net> wrote:
>> > unflattened != multiarch
>> > unflattened == choose libcombo at runtime
>> > flattened == choose libcombo at buildtime
>>
>> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either. Is libfoundation
>> incompatible with gnustep-base?
>
> While not an expert on gnustep, I think the differences are not just
> different implementations of the same API/ABI, I believe the libs are
> supposed to have different APIs. Many applications (all?) require
> specific libcombos to be built against.
>
>> Anyway, here's an idea:
>> Put binaries in unflattened %{_libdir}/GNUstep/* and symlink to /usr/bin.
>
> Binaries are probably not an issue, IMHO there are just some bugs in
> gnustep's implementation of the FHS (like /usr/bin/x86_64 subdirs,
> which we must truncate back).
So:
- binaries can be flattened
- library structure can be simplified:
currently: %{_prefix}/lib/<arch>/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
proposed: %{_libdir}/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu
(remove <arch> as we'll only ever deal with 32-bit/64-bit parallel
installs, and %{_libdir} handles this)
or perhaps even %{_libdir}/GNUstep/gnu-gnu-gnu?
If someone could point to a libFoundation set-up, we can see which of
linux-gnu and gnu-gnu-gnu can be done away with.
Just replace gnu-gnu-gnu with gnu-fd-gnu or gnu-fd-nil. The layout is
given by gnustep-make for all consumers independent of the combo.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
10:40 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.
Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.
Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
10:53 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>> Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.
> Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.
Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.
OK, depends on your definition of mixing. I thought you meant
parallel-installable. And yes, they are afaik, ABI-incompatible with
different sonames.
-- Rex
11:47 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Monday, 25 August 2008 at 17:53, Rex Dieter wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>On Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 17:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>>
>>>Hm. We don't support mixing lesstif and openmotif either.
>>Offtopic, fwiw, we *could*, it's only because openmotif isn't in fedora.
>
>Are you sure? AFAIK they are ABI-incompatible.
OK, depends on your definition of mixing. I thought you meant
parallel-installable. And yes, they are afaik, ABI-incompatible with
different sonames.
Hm, I was under the impression that they had the same sonames, but
I may have been wrong.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
11:59 a.m.
New subject: GNUstep filesystem layout discussion
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that they had the same sonames, but
I may have been wrong.
The openmotif and lesstif soname have the same base name but different
numbers. lesstif is like libXm.so.2 and openmotif libXm.so.3. This is
asking for future trouble, though appplications can have
Requires: lesstif
when they have been built with lesstif to mitigate the issue.
I am not exaclty sure what would be the right way in that case, though,
so I have postponed looking more at that issue.
--
Pat
5722
days inactive
5724
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Axel Thimm -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Michel Salim -
Patrice Dumas -
Rex Dieter