Description of problem: We'd consider to unbundle libpsi into another package. libpsi is used for both psi and psi-plus as well provided as a separate project in upstream. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): - How reproducible: yes Steps to Reproduce: 1. dnf install psi 2. dnf install psi-plus 3. Actual results: Both packages psi and psi-plus are build with bundled libpsi. Expected results: libpsi get's installed as a separate package. Additional info: https://github.com/psi-im/libpsi
Especially, libpsi has bundled minizip. There's now a fork of minizip independently from zlib as the legacy home project.
Someone need to package it first.
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #2) > Someone need to package it first. Maybe later when the minizip issue is fixed.
Well, maybe psi could provide libpsi as a subpackage?
> Well, maybe psi could provide libpsi as a subpackage? This is a new separate project. It must follow standard package review procedure.
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #5) > > Well, maybe psi could provide libpsi as a subpackage? > > This is a new separate project. It must follow standard package review > procedure. Hmm, psi-plus builds are from the snapshots project to get all sources and patches.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to '31'.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31.
Upstream developer said that it is absolutely impossible to provide libpsi as a separate shared library.
No, please keep this bug open. It's an obvious violation of our policy to unbundle in Fedora (downstream). Take care about the conflict between having a common library (libpsi) and patch it in each project individually!
> It's an obvious violation of our policy to unbundle in Fedora (downstream). Bundling does not violates any Fedora policies nowadays. Feel free to bundle anything you need after adding Provides: bundled() in SPEC. You don't even need to request FESCo exceptions for doing this.
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #11) > > It's an obvious violation of our policy to unbundle in Fedora (downstream). > > Bundling does not violates any Fedora policies nowadays. Feel free to bundle > anything you need after adding Provides: bundled() in SPEC. You don't even > need to request FESCo exceptions for doing this. That's well known for the general process. But I fail to see why upstream refused to implement.
> That's well known for the general process. But I fail to see why upstream refused to implement. Because it will be very difficult to maintain API and ABI compatibility.
Trying to find the relevant differences between psi/libpsi and psi-plus/libpsi folders. Why doesn't give me any output for spectool -g psi.spec? It works for psi-plus.spec though. psi-plus.spec delivers snapshot only, psi.spec is responsible to deliver all sources.
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #13) > > That's well known for the general process. But I fail to see why upstream refused to implement. > > Because it will be very difficult to maintain API and ABI compatibility. Well, apply patches downstream? I managed to do so with qtsingleapplication and falkon but it was about one or two methods only.
new maintainer.