Den mån 23 juni 2025 kl 10:18 skrev Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 09:04:53AM +0200, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> > Some background:
> > The CMakeLists.txt in trunk was broken, in that it didn't contain the
> major
> > version. This was fixed in May 2025 [2].
> > RedHat[3] pulled the (broken) CMakeLists.txt from trunk and at least some
> > RedHat-derived distributions carry a libserf package with only the
> serf.pc
> > file. From [4] it seems at least Fedora 39-41 were affected.
> > Joe Orton changed the SPEC file in December 2024[4] to "provide both
> > libserv-1.pc and libserf.pc pkg-config files". That fix will obviously
> not
> > be needed anymore if they update to the latest CMakeLists.txt version (or
> > when we release something based on trunk), although they might decide to
> > still provide libserf.pc.
> >
> > Maybe Joe can give us some more insight into RedHat's decision to use the
> > CMake build system - does it provide advantages for packagers?
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> We don't ship scons in RHEL so we try to avoid it as a build dependency.
> From looking at the git history there is something about the soname
> versioning being broken too for the scons build. I can't remember
> exactly but maybe the soname changed between the autoconf-based build
> and the scons one, or something like that? So maybe that didn't look in
> a healthy state either.
>

Serf never had an autoconf build system (oh, Greg will surely grey-beard me
on that one, we had one but it was removed by him in r1699088 back in
2011). Maybe there were/are differences between SCons and CMake when it
comes to soname (as well...).

I'd consider it a bug with the CMake build system (unless thoroughly
convinced otherwise) if it creates stuff that is different from the SCons
system.


>
> What's the comment about the packages being broken about, the .pc files
> issue?
>

See Graham Leggett's problems building Subversion on EL9:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/4wkbjhfpg9yyn10x827g65r9y50dgl74. You
clearly fixed that for Fedora42...

Thanks,
Daniel

Reply via email to