Bug 1098820
| Summary: | Review Request: idfpml - Intel Decimal Floating-Point Math Library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Eric Smith <spacewar> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, yselkowi |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-05-02 21:12:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1106294 | ||
|
Description
Eric Smith
2014-05-18 22:45:35 UTC
> Version: 20U1 The documentation in the tarball says "Version 2.0 Update 1" from Aug 2011. If Fedora's post-release versioning scheme were used, %version could really become "2.0". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages If the next release will become "2.1", one can only hope that they will stick to their versioning scheme and call it "21", since "20U1 > 2.1" already. > %package devel > Requires: idfpml = %{version}-%{release} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > # Create pkgconfig files for all library variants > mkdir pkgconfig > cd pkgconfig > for ubf in 0 1 > … > cat <<EOF >idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc > … With all due respect, but this is insane. You are adding to the API here. Typically, developers eventually will start supporting such pkgconfig files under the assumption that those are provided by upstream. As long as the files are specific to Fedora, that results in incompatibilities. Adding basic non-versioned pkgconfig files is okay if those will be merged upstream. Adding lots of idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc files is too much IMO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig That's a no-op so far, because the shared lib is not installed in runtime linker's search path: > %files > … > %{_libdir}/idfpml/libbid*.so.* Thanks for the comments. I'll fix the require for the base package and remove the ldconfig, and change the version numbering. I either disagree with or don't fully understand the comments regarding the pkg-config files being created in the package. The library code as provided by Intel is expected to be statically linked into an application, though there is nothing about it that precludes building as a shared library, which is what we need in Fedora. As such, it is exceedingly unlikely that they will either provide or accept pkg-config files. I don't understand how this is "adding to the API" or "results in incompatibilities". I am soliciting comments on that issue on the devel mailing list. Removed the .pc files also. :-( Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/idfpml/idfpml.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/idfpml/idfpml-2.0-1.U1.fc20.src.rpm The packaging guidelines do allow for static-only library packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 Given that you're renaming the libraries, creating shared libraries from them too may also be considered "adding to the API". |