Can multiple packages built from same source?

[Lin Gao]

Hi,

     We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar, 
which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want 
to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the 
ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone 
environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to 
built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which 
produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same 
source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is 
approved in Fedora?

-- 
BR
Lin Gao

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:08 +0800, Lin Gao wrote:

>  Hi,
>  
>       We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar, 
>  which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want 
>  to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the 
>  ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone 
>  environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to 
>  built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which 
>  produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same 
>  source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is 
>  approved in Fedora? 
Would it not be feasible to build an ironjacamar-standalone subpackage
from the existing ironjacamar src.rpm package? Additional build-time
dependencies could lead to problems/conflicts or make the build process
more complicated if a single src.rpm were to be used.

I'm not aware of any policy that would disallow reusing a source archive
in multiple src.rpm packages in order to build something differently.

The reason to not build everything from within a single src.rpm could also
be that either of the builds may need to change more often (with regard to
bug-fixing/patching).  For example, some existing src.rpms build the
included source two times, once for GTK2 and a second time for GTK3, and
put the resulting builds in separate binary rpms. However, if either of
the builds required more maintenance, the updates for the other one would
be superfluous. Hence it could be more convenient to split into two
src.rpm packages (with the added risk that avoiding file conflicts becomes
more difficult).

-- 
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.7-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.44 0.27 0.18

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

Quoting Lin Gao (2012-05-25 10:07:08)
>  Hi,
>  
>       We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar, 
>  which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want 
>  to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the 
>  ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone 
>  environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to 
>  built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which 
>  produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same 
>  source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is 
>  approved in Fedora? 
Have you contacted ironjacamar maintainer? I assume ironjacamar produces
only some of the jars required by JBoss AS7, because building additional
jars would need more dependencies. In order to simplify packaging: these
were skipped.

I don't know the details, but I believe going for a subpackage approach
would be better. Getting in touch with ironjacamar maintainers is needed
in any case.

Or maybe I misunderstood and you say ironjacamar-standalone is meant to
be used without requiring several jboss packages? Even in that case a
subpackages could be done in a way to have simple dependencies for one
subpackage and main package just having subpackage in Requires.

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com&gt;
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com

[Lin Gao]

Hi,

BR
Lin Gao


On 05/25/2012 06:10 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>  Quoting Lin Gao (2012-05-25 10:07:08)
> > Hi,
> >
> >       We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar,
> > which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want
> > to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the
> > ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone
> > environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to
> > built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which
> > produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same
> > source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is
> > approved in Fedora?
>  Have you contacted ironjacamar maintainer? 
I am contacting with him.
>  I assume ironjacamar produces
>  only some of the jars required by JBoss AS7, because building additional
>  jars would need more dependencies. In order to simplify packaging: these
>  were skipped. 
Yes, I am aware of that. I am building the missing dependencies now,

there are only 3 dependencies left needed for ironjacamar standalone 
environment.
>  I don't know the details, but I believe going for a subpackage approach
>  would be better. Getting in touch with ironjacamar maintainers is needed
>  in any case.
>
>  Or maybe I misunderstood and you say ironjacamar-standalone is meant to
>  be used without requiring several jboss packages? Even in that case a
>  subpackages could be done in a way to have simple dependencies for one
>  subpackage and main package just having subpackage in Requires.
>  
ironjacamar-standalone uses some *shared* libraries as JBoss AS 7 and 
some libraries used only by ironjacamar-standalone itself, like: papaki, 
fungal.

Thank you for the advices !

[Lin Gao]

Hi,

BR
Lin Gao


On 05/25/2012 04:57 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:08 +0800, Lin Gao wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >       We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar,
> > which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want
> > to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the
> > ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone
> > environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to
> > built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which
> > produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same
> > source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is
> > approved in Fedora?
>  Would it not be feasible to build an ironjacamar-standalone subpackage
>  from the existing ironjacamar src.rpm package? Additional build-time
>  dependencies could lead to problems/conflicts or make the build process
>  more complicated if a single src.rpm were to be used.
>
>  I'm not aware of any policy that would disallow reusing a source archive
>  in multiple src.rpm packages in order to build something differently.
>
>  The reason to not build everything from within a single src.rpm could also
>  be that either of the builds may need to change more often (with regard to
>  bug-fixing/patching).  For example, some existing src.rpms build the
>  included source two times, once for GTK2 and a second time for GTK3, and
>  put the resulting builds in separate binary rpms. However, if either of
>  the builds required more maintenance, the updates for the other one would
>  be superfluous. Hence it could be more convenient to split into two
>  src.rpm packages (with the added risk that avoiding file conflicts becomes
>  more difficult).
>  
Yes, make sense. Thank you!