Created attachment 1926724 [details] zlib-ng.spec patch Description of problem: Allow users to rebuild package with/without some key functions --with compat - replace system zlib --without sanitizers - build without sanitizers
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 38 development cycle. Changing version to 38.
Quite a few package Requires: zlib-devel%{?_isa}, so that (and zlib%{?_isa}) should be in the Provides: A few package require 'libz-ng.so.2()(64bit)': blosc2, nbdkit-basic-filters, python3-imagecodecs So perhaps it would make more sense to have libz-ng.so.2 build everything twice, and create 4 packages: A package that is compatible with zlib A devel package that is compatible with zlib A package that has the zlib-ng non-compat API A devel package for that
> nbdkit-basic-filters For this one I only added it recently: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nbdkit/c/6bc107126658f95ac78c6fcf9b48be63dbb8594c?branch=rawhide I would revert that if the normal zlib was faster.
@szafar Jacek, This is finally moving forward. I apologize for taking so long to review your patch. I had to implement a couple of changes, but I'd like to recognize your authorship in the commit. Could you confirm if I can use "Jacek Szafarkiewicz" <szafar> as the original author of the patch, please?
(In reply to Owen Taylor from comment #2) > So perhaps it would make more sense to have libz-ng.so.2 build everything > twice, and create 4 packages: > > A package that is compatible with zlib > A devel package that is compatible with zlib > A package that has the zlib-ng non-compat API > A devel package for that Owen, I agree. I implemented this in a RFC that is under review https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zlib-ng/pull-request/3 Feedback is welcome!
This is even better than what I proposed I will be honored if I am marked as the author ;)
This has been implemented in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ee87e22b40 and should reach Rawhide soon.