Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:35:33 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > > On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > > I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the > > package version for the library version. > > That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI changes and > the numbering has different *semantics* than package version numbering. > > [the libtool info file has a good introduction to ABI version numbering] The way it has been done, any minor version update would break dependencies: $ rpm -qp --provides libre-0.4.4-5.fc20.x86_64.rpm libre = 0.4.4-5.fc20 libre(x86-64) = 0.4.4-5.fc20 libre.so.0.4.4()(64bit) That's the opposite scenario of "no soname", where every new upstream release might break the ABI/API. Which is more dangerous, if such changes are not noticed with rpmsodiff or abi checker tools. That may not be seen as a problem to you, however, if you plan to check new releases painstakingly. There are no guidelines about it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:38:25 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > [...] what the upstream Makefile > currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms > of patching the upstream build process. The build output is "silent" using '@' command invocations in the Makefile. Patching that confirmed that Fedora's compiler flags aren't used: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags Nowadays, some packagers apply a trick similar to %build %configure || : make … or %build [ -f configure ] || touch configure ; chmod +x configure %configure make … for exporting CFLAGS (and more) properly. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the > package version for the library version. That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI changes and the numbering has different *semantics* than package version numbering. [the libtool info file has a good introduction to ABI version numbering] IMO, there are two alternatives: * If upstream decide to manage ABI versions that's best. * Otherwise, you can number the library as .0.0 and increment for every new upstream release -- which means we assume each of them breaks ABI compatibility :-( (since currently, this library has only one client, it shouldn't be too painful). -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron "I love deadlines, especially the whooshing sound they make as they go by." -- Douglas Adams -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:38:25PM -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the > > API/ABI? > > Yeah, that's my feeling, too, but that's what the upstream Makefile > currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms > of patching the upstream build process. I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the package version for the library version. -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Doesn't look too bad ;) judging based on very brief look at the spec file,
> but it violates the Static Library Packaging Guidelines, and I wonder
> who "owns" %{_datadir}/re?
I've removed the static library and made the package an explicit owner
of %{_datadir}/re.
> > %{_libdir}/libre.so
>
> A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the API/ABI?
Yeah, that's my feeling, too, but that's what the upstream Makefile
currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms
of patching the upstream build process.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:59:43 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for
> "libre" (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for
> "baresip" (http://www.creytiv.com/baresip.html), which is a barebones
> SIP client that I've found very useful for testing SIP connectivity.
> I would ultimately like to get baresip into Fedora, but I will first
> need to get the libre and librem libraries packaged first.
>
> I've done a lot of packaging in the past for personal and/or work
> related projects, but this is my first time trying to share work with
> the larger community.
Doesn't look too bad ;) judging based on very brief look at the spec file,
but it violates the Static Library Packaging Guidelines, and I wonder
who "owns" %{_datadir}/re?
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
-> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
> %{_libdir}/libre.so
A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the API/ABI?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
Hello everyone, I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for "libre" (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for "baresip" (http://www.creytiv.com/baresip.html), which is a barebones SIP client that I've found very useful for testing SIP connectivity. I would ultimately like to get baresip into Fedora, but I will first need to get the libre and librem libraries packaged first. I've done a lot of packaging in the past for personal and/or work related projects, but this is my first time trying to share work with the larger community. Cheers, -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
