[Bug 507083] Review Request: poco - C++ class libraries for network-centric applications

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507083





--- Comment #20 from Maxim Udushlivy <udushlivy at mail.ru>  2009-11-11 16:55:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #19)

> Have you contacted upstream developers to discuss their bundling of libraries?
> It would be nice if they could stop doing that or at least make it optional
> with a ./configure settings.
> Though it's not strictly necessary, it is a good idea to keep a live
> relationship with upstream.

If I recall correctly, somebody already asked POCO developers to do something
about bundled libraries problem and there was a refusal. However, a good patch
that adds an appropriate option to the "configure" script may change their
minds. Such a patch may be written at some point in the future.

> Your main package "poco" depends on "poco-devel". This is unusual and I don't
> recommend it. You said Boost packaging was your inspiration when you separated
> the package into several subpackages, but Boost does not do this.  

Unusual, but not without benefits. "poco" is a metapackage that helps the
developer to install the whole toolkit at once, including headers
("poco-devel") and documentation ("poco-doc"). If this layout is not welcome,
it may be reorganized: instead of "poco", "poco-devel" package becomes a new
toplevel, not depending on "poco-doc". The name of the spec file will have to
be "poco-devel.spec" in this case.

The boost toplevel package depends only on binary subpackages which has little
meaning to either developers or users.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.