Re: Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Dan Horák]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:30:58 +0200
Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Just wanted to ping here about one packaging helper [1], which is
>  stuck in some (possibly infinite/priority) queue without any review.
>  
>  In database packages we have that multilib hack for a very long time,
>  mostly C&P'ed among various spec files.  Having this in
>  redhat-rpm-config could make that more solid, maintained at one place.
>  
>  [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286193
>  [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks
>  
>  It is probably possible to package this separately, so I'm ready to
>  have a special package for database purposes.  But who knows, maybe
>  it is a time to drop that idea at all? 
more automation or simplification helps the maintainers, so I'm +1 here

Can we get FPC opinion on this?


		Dan

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "DH" == Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt;
> writes: 
DH> Can we get FPC opinion on this?

A summary would be useful, I think.

I believe the proposal is to add to redhat-rpm-config a script which
generates non-conflicting C headers, and a macro for calling that
script.  I see no problem with this at all if it's generally useful.
However, the patch presented in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1099680&action=diff isn't
the best way to do it.

Make a separate package which provides the macro file and script.  Show
us (either in an FPC ticket or just a reply in this thread) how this
saves some packager time.  I'll then add a dependency on that package to
redhat-rpm-config.

 - J<

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

Also, if there is any point in having a packaging guideline for this,
please submit a draft to FPC.  I think I'd want to see how often it
actually helps to have a standardized/mandated way of doing this before
we go that far, though.  (It's not particularly difficult to make that
argument but someone would need to do a few minutes of work.)

 - J<

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Pavel Raiskup]

Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup
> <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
PR> Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in:
PR> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312

Why would you bump a three year old ticket for this?  Just open a new
one.

 - J<

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:28:05 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  >>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup
> <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  PR> Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in:
>  PR> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312
>  
>  Why would you bump a three year old ticket for this? 
Jason, because that's what you suggested while you were previously closing
the ticket, and also because the ticket covered it all.  Original purpose
of the ticket was to hear FPC's opinion about this.

>  Just open a new one. 
Having a new ticket just to hear opinions would just make me to copy
basically everything (anybody would still have to look at the older one).
So I stop here.

The new ticket, to me, should be about MultilibTricks draft ratification,
but we are obviously not there yet.

As we talk about "draft only" stuff and there is no clear vote against
that change (from FPC), I'll simply try to edit the draft once the
'multilib-rpm-config' package [1] gets reviewed.  I can then submit FPC
ticket (and edit [2] accordingly) asking for adding 'Requires:
multilib-rpm-config' into 'redhat-rpm-config'.  Merging whole thing
afterwards into 'redhat-rpm-config' would just be trivial playing with
Provides/Requires.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286193

Thanks,
Pavel