The following issue has been RESOLVED. ====================================================================== http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=510 ====================================================================== Reported By: bjohnson Assigned To: paul ====================================================================== Project: DBMail Issue ID: 510 Category: General Reproducibility: always Severity: trivial Priority: normal Status: resolved target: Resolution: fixed Fixed in Version: 2.2.3 ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 22-Feb-07 00:38 CET Last Modified: 26-Feb-07 10:47 CET ====================================================================== Summary: libsqlite.so.* is build even when --with-sqlite is not specified Description: Building dbmail without --with-sqlite still produces libsqlite.so.* files.
Even when built on a system that does not have sqlite! ====================================================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- paul - 26-Feb-07 09:29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So what's the problem here, really. Those .so files are pretty much empty stubs. If the fact that libtool builds them annoyes you this would be a cosmetic issue at best. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bjohnson - 26-Feb-07 10:09 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Having libsqlite.so.* file on the system where there is no support for sqlite is confusing at best. I was building this as a package for Fedora/CentOS when I came across this. At first, I though it was a problem with configure not obeying the options correctly. Then after removing any sqlite devel libs so it would be impossible to build support, it became apparent that it was always built. When I first started building the packages, I expected there to only be files that I had asked for (as specific sub-packages pick up certain files to reduce dependency bloat). What happened, in rpm, is a safeguard check that triggered an unexpected unpackaged file error - this terminates the rpm build. So then, in the package you have to specifically go and delete this file to make rpm happy. While this is a trivial thing to have to do, it ups the bar slightly for package maintenance. Not only does it have to be removed, you then have to document why you do such a silly thing as delete a .so.* group that should never have been built to start with. Still, this is trivial, until you multiply all these types of tiny fixes by thousands packages, with maintainers coming and going. As a maintainer of the RPM package in Fedora Extras, it's my job to notify you (upstream) of things like this (and bug 509) as potential maintenance issues, and, at least in the view of Fedora Extras packaging, an undesirable feature. We do this for many things that are deemed, at least in our project, to be undesirable: 1) mixing tabs and spaces in text files 2) encoding other than UTF8 3) using dos eol 4) tarballs do not reflect package name and version 5) improper or not included licenses 6) executable documentation (or permission problems in general) ... and many more In many cases we find that the authors are completely unaware of many of these problems, and are happy to receive the feedback to fix issues that they may have missed. For example we also provided Aaron a report regarding files in libsieve that were not LGPL (they were in fact GPL, which changes the overall license of the package), and build problems where make flags were not passed correctly. It's this kind of scrutiny that helps produce quality packages for the community. As the upstream maintainer of the package, it's certainly your decision to handle this however you want, and as long as it doesn't create a big burden (it's not), security issue, license violation, or other terminal guideline violation, we will respect that and continue to package within our guidelines making changes as necessary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- paul - 26-Feb-07 10:47 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok. Fixed it. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 22-Feb-07 00:38 bjohnson New Issue 26-Feb-07 09:29 paul Note Added: 0001839 26-Feb-07 09:29 paul Severity minor => trivial 26-Feb-07 09:29 paul Status new => feedback 26-Feb-07 10:09 bjohnson Note Added: 0001844 26-Feb-07 10:47 paul Note Added: 0001846 26-Feb-07 10:47 paul Assigned To => paul 26-Feb-07 10:47 paul Status feedback => resolved 26-Feb-07 10:47 paul Resolution open => fixed 26-Feb-07 10:47 paul Fixed in Version => 2.2.3 ====================================================================== _______________________________________________ Dbmail-dev mailing list [email protected] http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
