Sorry, resending because the original message was rejected by the mailing list.
Hi Lukas, Lukas Javorsky <ljavo...@redhat.com> writes: > Hi, > > I'm currently maintaining the zlib package across Fedora and Red Hat products. > > I like the proposal for the zlib-ng package, there are just a few questions > for @Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <mailto:tmach...@redhat.com> : > 1) Just to clarify, do you want to have two separate packages (zlib-ng and > e.g. zlib-ng-compat) in Fedora? One with the `-DZLIB_COMPAT=ON` option > enabled and one without it? Yes. While I do not have a personal preference, I believe it's important to provide the zlib-ng API for projects willing to use it instead of the zlib API. I'm open to other suggestions too, including building zlib-ng twice and distributing them in different sub-packages as suggested by Michel. Would you have any preferences? > 2) What is your point of view on maintaining these packages? You will be the > main contact and I could be the secondary one? LGTM. Ali (in Cc.) has also demonstrated interest in this package too. I'd be happy to share this with both of you. > 3) Same as 2) but for CentOS Stream and RHEL products? Sorry, I'm afraid the decision on supporting RHEL products is beyond my pay grade. > Next, I have a few scary scenarios in my head, which I'm not sure how would > be handled: Please share all of them! My experience maintaining long term libraries downstream is limited. > 1) When we decide to migrate from zlib to zlib-ng and zlib-ng-compat, the > packages would still need to rewrite their code so they can use the pure (no > compat) zlib-ng functions and libraries. How many of the packages will be > able (and most importantly willing) to do that? I disagree that packages "need to rewrite their code". IMHO, most packages will probably keep using the zlib API and should magically link against the zlib-ng-compat package. > 2) There are 271 RPMs dependent on zlib in ELN repo (there will be more in > the Fedora repo). It would mean that we would have to side-tag rebuild all of > them when switching to the zlib-ng-compat package. It may be challenging. I'm planning to use the mass-prebuild tool on Copr first [1]. > If I understood something incorrectly please let me know, I'm trying to > understand it completely, what is the plan here. It will be needed to be > thoroughly documented in the Fedora Change. Agreed. > Overall, I think performance-wise this is a great idea. We just need to be > cautious about the compatibility. Ack. [1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild -- Tulio Magno _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
