[Fwd: devel packages with only one .pc file]

[Jesse Keating]

Forwarding this here too.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Alexander Larsson <alexl(a)redhat.com&gt;
Reply-To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers
<fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
Subject: devel packages with only one .pc file
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0200

I've recently got several bugs against package involving basically
splitting out only one pkg-config file into a -devel package, because
the packaging guidelines says so. I've done this for a couple of
packages, but its starting to get very ridicolous.

The one-file -devel package is totally useless, all it leads to is:
* Existance of -devel package means we bloat the 64bit distro with the
32bit version of the main package too.
* Developers, script or packages fail because they want to use the .pc
file but the -devel package is not installed.
* The package metadata (like changelog) stored twice in the rpm
database.

I can't really think of any advantages. What exactly is the reasoning
behind this rule? 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl(a)redhat.com    alla(a)lysator.liu.se 
He's an ungodly neurotic stage actor on a search for his missing sister. She's 
a time-travelling foul-mouthed femme fatale trying to make a difference in a 
man's world. They fight crime! 

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Rex Dieter]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  Forwarding this here too.
>  
>  -------- Forwarded Message --------
>  From: Alexander Larsson <alexl(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Reply-To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers
>  <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Subject: devel packages with only one .pc file
>  Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0200
>  
>  I've recently got several bugs against package involving basically
>  splitting out only one pkg-config file into a -devel package, because
>  the packaging guidelines says so. I've done this for a couple of
>  packages, but its starting to get very ridicolous.
>  
>  The one-file -devel package is totally useless 
I would tend to agree, a single .pc file -devel pkg is a bit silly.
Perhaps the existing rule:

- MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.

probably ought to be amended.

-- Rex

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:53:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > Forwarding this here too.
>  > 
>  > -------- Forwarded Message --------
>  > From: Alexander Larsson <alexl(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > Reply-To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers
>  > <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > Subject: devel packages with only one .pc file
>  > Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0200
>  > 
>  > I've recently got several bugs against package involving basically
>  > splitting out only one pkg-config file into a -devel package, because
>  > the packaging guidelines says so. I've done this for a couple of
>  > packages, but its starting to get very ridicolous.
>  > 
>  > The one-file -devel package is totally useless
>  
>  I would tend to agree, a single .pc file -devel pkg is a bit silly.
>  Perhaps the existing rule:
>  
>  - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
>  
>  probably ought to be amended. 
What good is a pc file w/o any other development bits? Maybe the
package is question has a bogus pc file that ought to be rm'd instead
of split off into a subpackage?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[Matthias Saou]

Rex Dieter wrote :

>  Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > Forwarding this here too.
>  > 
>  > -------- Forwarded Message --------
>  > From: Alexander Larsson <alexl(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > Reply-To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers
>  > <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > Subject: devel packages with only one .pc file
>  > Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0200
>  > 
>  > I've recently got several bugs against package involving basically
>  > splitting out only one pkg-config file into a -devel package, because
>  > the packaging guidelines says so. I've done this for a couple of
>  > packages, but its starting to get very ridicolous.
>  > 
>  > The one-file -devel package is totally useless
>  
>  I would tend to agree, a single .pc file -devel pkg is a bit silly.
>  Perhaps the existing rule:
>  
>  - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
>  
>  probably ought to be amended. 
Well, if the .pc file has its cflags or libs show that the package
requires other libraries (some X libs, or gtk stuff, or...), then it
does make sense to split the -devel package out, since it will not just
contain one file, but also other -devel package requirements that we
definitely don't want to be forcing on all simple users of the runtime
bits.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.91 (FC6 Test2) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2611.fc6
Load : 0.49 0.40 0.43

[Christopher Stone]

On 9/4/06, Matthias Saou
<thias(a)spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net&gt;
wrote:
>  Rex Dieter wrote :
>
>  > Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > > Forwarding this here too.
>  > >
>  > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
>  > > From: Alexander Larsson <alexl(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > > Reply-To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers
>  > > <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > > To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > > Subject: devel packages with only one .pc file
>  > > Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0200
>  > >
>  > > I've recently got several bugs against package involving basically
>  > > splitting out only one pkg-config file into a -devel package, because
>  > > the packaging guidelines says so. I've done this for a couple of
>  > > packages, but its starting to get very ridicolous.
>  > >
>  > > The one-file -devel package is totally useless
>  >
>  > I would tend to agree, a single .pc file -devel pkg is a bit silly.
>  > Perhaps the existing rule:
>  >
>  > - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
>  >
>  > probably ought to be amended.
>
>  Well, if the .pc file has its cflags or libs show that the package
>  requires other libraries (some X libs, or gtk stuff, or...), then it
>  does make sense to split the -devel package out, since it will not just
>  contain one file, but also other -devel package requirements that we
>  definitely don't want to be forcing on all simple users of the runtime
>  bits.
>  
+1

This has been discussed before and it was decided that a .pc file
should be in a devel package even if it is the only file in the
package for the reason given by Matthias.

And I don't see it being worth the effort to try and come up with
exceptions to the rule.  There is barely any overhead involved in
creating a single file devel package (AFAIK).

[Jeremy Katz]

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:59 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
>  And I don't see it being worth the effort to try and come up
> with
>  exceptions to the rule.  There is barely any overhead involved in
>  creating a single file devel package (AFAIK). 
There *are* some overheads, though -- you duplicate the vast majority of
the package information in the rpmdb and in metadata (thus, more bits to
download for updates, etc).  It also means that the package becomes
multilib[1]

Also, I've now seen pkgconfig files used for things other than
development tasks, although I think that might be kind of crack ;-)

Jeremy

[1] The current mechanism is that we want all devel packages to be
available as multilib as that makes it something a computer can do
rather than something a human maintains[2].  Which is pretty sensible on
the whole.  But it starts to show some fuzziness at the edges when we
talk about only vaguely arch-specific stuff (mono and java are what come
to mind here)
[2] A few years of a human maintaining has shown that it doesn't
work :-)

[Paul F. Johnson]

Hi,

As the person who actually filed the bugs...

>  The one-file -devel package is totally useless, all it leads to is:
>  * Existance of -devel package means we bloat the 64bit distro with the
>  32bit version of the main package too. 
Is there actually a reason for doing this? I could never understand it.

>  * Developers, script or packages fail because they want to use the
> .pc
>  file but the -devel package is not installed. 
And? Just requires adding the devel package - hardly an amazingly
difficult act!

>  I can't really think of any advantages. What exactly is the
> reasoning
>  behind this rule?  
This point was discussed at length when the mono packaging rules were
being done. Most (if not all) mono packages ONLY have the .pc file in
the devel package - mono-debugger is the exception to that but that is a
special case.

My personal feeling was (at the time) - bloody stupid idea, but now I
can see the point.

TTFN

Paul
-- 
"Bist Du meine Mutter?" - das leere kind