On Friday 18 March 2016 08:29:27 Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-03-18, Kamil Dudka <kdu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 14:44:21 Przemek Klosowski wrote: > > > > According to Fedora Packaging Guidelines, unversioned shared library files > > should be installed by -devel packages: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guideline > > s#Devel_Packages > No. The guidelines are badly written. "unversioned shared library files" > means "shared library unversioned file name". Spliting files between > -libs and -devel packages is not based on sonames, but on purpose of the > file. > > Dlopening unversioned file name is as bad as linking against librires > without sonames. To express package dependencies on soanames, one has to > dlopen the versioned file name. Of course that means to compile in the > soname when building an application. At the end that's what linker (ld) > does. Yes, it would mean to patch each application. > > > I will not support any solution that would allow to install multiple > > instances of libcurl on a single system. We (as curl maintainers) > > have no control about which packages link which libraries and it could > > sooner or later happen that both instances of libcurl are loaded in > > a single process through higher-level libraries, which is not > > a scenario supported by upstream. > > I think the solution is have more packages delivering the same-named > shared library file with the same soname. Each of the packages > conflicting each other.
Up to this point, you are describing the originally proposed solution. Testing packages are available in the following Copr repository if you want to give it a try: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kdudka/curl-minimal/ > Then the non-minimal package would provide RPM > symbols declaring compiled-in features like "Provides: libcurl(LDAP)" > and then each application package requiring specific feature would > explicitly run-require it ("Requied: libcurl(LDAP)"), besides > automatically genererated dependency on the soname. Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. Thanks for the suggestion! Kamil > The magic of prefering the minimal package over non-minimal package > would be kept on package manager. For example it could sort the > candidates on size or number of dependencies. > > -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
