[Fedora-packaging] Impasse on packaging JOGL and Gluegen

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 06:58:23PM -0300, Henrique Junior wrote:
> > You need to figure out why jogl needs gluegen and what the ramification is
> > for the final package in order to really get this discussion going.  The
> > closer we can make this to a static library issue, the easier time you'll
> > have justifying an exception.  The closer it is to a bundled library, the
> > less likely an exception is.
> >
> > -Toshio
> 
> I think that Hans's suggestion (in the devel list) may be a good solution.
> 
Hans's suggestion may be good.  But it depends on what is really going on in
jogl.  If jogl could be easily patched to not need gluegen's source code but
we end up doing the gluegen source code then it's a very poor solution.
OTOH, if jogl really needs some private "header" from the gluegen source
then it is a resonable solution (it becomes equivalent to tracking a static
library and is an easier exception to grant than an exception for bundled
libraries.)

So... more informaiton is needed.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20100228/d893ac9a/attachment.bin