Re: The *.so files

onsdagen den 6 november 2002 23.59 skrev Michael Ballbach:
> He's talked to me about it briefly. We'll combine our efforts one way or
> another. He used my specs file as a basis.
>
> I did not like the idea of splitting up so's throughout development/lib
> prefixed packages because subversion uses a lot of them and there
> primary purpose is for subversion working. Maybe their
> secondary/tirtiary purpose is for the development of other programs.
>
> The devel package in the specs file in the subversion tree contains the
> linker scripts, headers, and the static libraries.
>
> The so's are broken up right now into several different packages based
> on the different functionality:
>
> subversion-base-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-client-common-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-client-local-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-client-dav-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-repos-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-server-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-devel-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
> subversion-python-0.14.5-3567.1mdk.i586.rpm
>
> All are split out between these packages depending on their purpose.
> --enable-dso is used for this purpose. I'm neutral on the subversion
> folder in /usr/lib thing, since the subversion shared objects are
> obvious do to the 'svn' in the name.

I discussed this some on the cooker list and came up with that idea, put
shared modules perhaps in libexecdir? Right now I think most of the
developers at Mandrake are on leave, so it's hard to get help.

> I always figured the lib-something-mdk.x.rpm packages were meant for
> true-to-form libraries, used only for development. None of the
> subversion shared objects I can think of except the swig bindings in the
> python package can be said to be that way, so I did not consider using
> them. As an example, libperl.so is in the perl-base package, not in a
> libperl package.

In this case I may have wrongly assumed that this was the way to do it, I may
have to ditch my spec file and use yours, we'll see. I'm terrible new to this
software but I'll learn as I go along.

Ahh..., now that I come to think of it "rpmlint" which is used to verify and
check rpm packages, complained about compiled-in rpaths, could that maybe be
fixed somehow?

> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:19:05PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 07:31:50PM +0100, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I have packaged subversion v0.14.5 r3578 for Mandrake Linux 9.0/Cooker,
> > > but stumbled upon an issue. The common practise in Mandrake Linux is to
> > > package the "*.so" files in a devel subpackage.
> >
> > Are you aware of the packages/rpm/mandrake-9.0/ directory in Subversion?
> > And if so, do you have patches for it? If not, then maybe your work
> > should be aligned with what is there? (I'd hate to have two divergent
> > Mandrake RPM setups)

-- 
Regards // Oden Eriksson, Deserve-IT Networks
Check the "Modules For Apache2" status page at: 
http://www.deserve-it.com/modules_for_apache2.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org