No lzma sdk in fedora
jreiser at bitwagon.com
Fri Feb 12 23:48:00 UTC 2010
On 02/12/2010 03:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> What I was really asking is if there should
> be a source package so that upx could be built without having a second
> copy of the SDK in another srpm?
The previous editions lzma442, 443, 449, 457, 458, 459,
all required *different* adaptations by upx.
So a separate Fedora source package would have been of little value,
except possibly as an indicator of the need for a -libs package.
But during that time, creating a -libs package appeared to be
incompatible with the licensing. [Today "LZMA SDK is placed in
the public domain".]
Until someone with enough authority standardizes the library package
and its interfaces, and there is evidence that the library will be
maintained, then each downstream must fend for itself.
More information about the devel