Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Just a reminder that the next chat is scheduled for Friday, April 4,
2008, 09:00--10:00 UTC (11:00--12:00 CEST) on
irc://freenode/ooopackaging. (I hope the shifted time is OK for
everybody.)
And the transcript:
[2008-04-04 11:00:10] <sb_> Hi all. Anything to discuss, anybody?
[2008-04-04 11:02:41] -->| pmladek
([EMAIL PROTECTED]/suse/x-ca7f987f9a0900fb) has joined #ooopackaging
[2008-04-04 11:03:00] <pmladek> Good Morning
[2008-04-04 11:03:23] <kendy> sb_: I'd have a question ;-) Now, when m4
has the 3layer OOo, what are the next steps please?
[2008-04-04 11:03:44] <kendy> sb_: [Or did I just miss a post/wiki entry
- in that case just a pointer is OK ;-)]
[2008-04-04 11:04:26] <sb_> bugfixing ;) seriously: finishing off the
final parts (multiple products installable next to each other; getting
the update story right; ...)
[2008-04-04 11:04:27] -->| _Nesshof_ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-888ded5874953ba6)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2008-04-04 11:05:24] <sb_> going further (changing instset to build
packages just once, etc.) is longer term, and has not yet been
planned/started
[2008-04-04 11:06:00] <kendy> sb_: OK :-)
[2008-04-04 11:06:12] <is_> I will reorganize core packages and remove
relocatibilty of our Unix core packages after our Beta is released.
[2008-04-04 11:06:19] |<-- obr has left freenode (Excess Flood)
[2008-04-04 11:06:39] <sb_> kendy: do you plan to go ahead with any
activities?
[2008-04-04 11:06:47] <kendy> sb_: So that URE will install to /usr? Or?
[2008-04-04 11:06:50] -->| obr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2008-04-04 11:07:14] <kendy> sb_: Well, I'd love to :-) - not sure how
much time will I have for this though :-(
[2008-04-04 11:08:17] <obr> what is ongoing is renaming of packages to
include major (and minor) number in the name !
[2008-04-04 11:09:09] <sb_> kendy: Not sure if we ever take initiative
in moving (parts of) OOo from unbundled /opt to bundled /usr. I rather
think that with the flexibility we now have, distros can decide for
themselves where to put things, and experiment with that.
[2008-04-04 11:10:01] <kendy> sb_: Oh - OK. Then I must have
misunderstood 'remove relocatibilty', can you please explain it to me?
[2008-04-04 11:10:57] <kendy> obr: Nice :-) And now when '680' [or 300
;-)] is gone from the names, will also the 'li' or 'lx' suffix go?
[2008-04-04 11:11:48] <obr> kendy: I think you misunderstood what I meant
[2008-04-04 11:11:49] <sb_> remove relocatibility: currently /opt is
relocatable prefix for RPMs, that will change to just /
[2008-04-04 11:11:52] <pmladek> sb_: I really would like to work on
building the noarch stuff separately (localization, icon themes, ...)
and also on the other stuff. Unfortunately, I am still busy with some
other things. I am afraid that we would need another packager in SUSE to
work on these packaging features :-(
[2008-04-04 11:12:22] <kendy> sb_: I see, thanks.
[2008-04-04 11:12:50] <obr> kendy: we are moving package names from
openoffice.org-core02 to openoffice.org3.0-core02
[2008-04-04 11:13:28] <obr> kendy: even though I agree the 'li', 'lx'
prefix should go as well;-)
[2008-04-04 11:13:41] <kendy> obr: /me apparently misread
[2008-04-04 11:13:51] <pmladek> obr: What are the plans with 3.x versions?
[2008-04-04 11:14:01] <kendy> obr: ...and read 'libraries' instead of
'packages' - sorry ;-)
[2008-04-04 11:14:16] <pmladek> obr: I wonder if openoffice.org3 would
be enough
[2008-04-04 11:14:16] <sb_> pmladek: what do you mean exactly?
[2008-04-04 11:14:26] <obr> kendy: np.
[2008-04-04 11:14:33] <sb_> pmladek: no, let me explain:
[2008-04-04 11:15:51] <kendy> obr: But when I understand now ;-) - do
you think it is necessary to have the version in the package name?
[2008-04-04 11:15:52] <sb_> the interface between basis and brand will
likely not remain compatible across minors, so if you have product A and
B both based on basis3.0 installed, and then update A to be based on
basis3.1, you need to keep the old basis3.0 around to not break installed B.
[2008-04-04 11:16:10] <kendy> obr: [Not that it's really my businnes, we
name the packages another names, but... ;-)]
[2008-04-04 11:17:22] <kendy> obr: You can have 2 versions installed
using rpm at the same time even though the package name is the same,
just the versions differ...
[2008-04-04 11:18:46] <pmladek> sb_: Okay, I see
[2008-04-04 11:19:10] <pmladek> sb_: BTW: What do you plan with the user
configuration directory version?
[2008-04-04 11:19:28] <pmladek> sb_: Will it be the same for 3.0 and 3.1?
[2008-04-04 11:19:57] <pmladek> sb_: So, that users do not lost changes
between minor versions?
[2008-04-04 11:20:36] <sb_> pmladek: I have no ideas about that. How
is it today (OOo 2.x)?
[2008-04-04 11:21:04] <pmladek> sb_: You use .openoffice.org2
[2008-04-04 11:22:08] <sb_> pmladek: Then it will probably remain that
way (.openoffice.org3). Seriously, I never was involved in decisions
about naming that, so have no idea about the rationales in doing it that
way...
[2008-04-04 11:22:27] <pmladek> sb_: Okay, thanks for explanation.
[2008-04-04 11:23:57] <pmladek> sb_: I still think about the package
names. It might make sense to use the minor version just for basis, to
allow parallel installation.
[2008-04-04 11:24:19] <pmladek> sb_: It might be better to use just the
major version for the products
[2008-04-04 11:24:21] <sb_> kendy: "we name the packages another names":
Is probably a good thing (even better if you install to somewhere
other than /opt). Imagine installing Sun-built StarOffice on SuSE with
already installed SuSE-built OOo, where slightly different ABIs are
involved---the SO brand would probably not be happy with the basis layer
from the already installed OOo... :(
[2008-04-04 11:24:56] <pmladek> sb_: It will solve the update more easily.
[2008-04-04 11:25:37] <pmladek> sb_: You would need to add many
provides/obsoletes, otherwise the users would need to remove the older
minor versions by hand...
[2008-04-04 11:25:48] <sb_> pmladek: Yes sure, if you have minor
numbers encoded in package names, you cannot have small update sets
across minors... That's one drawback of sharing the basis layer across
products.
[2008-04-04 11:26:06] <kendy> sb_: Yes, and pmladek has off-the-channell
explained me that indeed the version in the name is probably more
convenient for you, so please ignore that ;-)
[2008-04-04 11:26:49] <sb_> pmladek: "many provides/obsoletes": no idea
yet, that's part of the "update story" I mentioned in the beginning
(which we are still working out)
[2008-04-04 11:27:28] <pmladek> sb_: Ideal solution probaly does not exist.
[2008-04-04 11:27:34] <kendy> :-)
[2008-04-04 11:27:48] <sb_> indeed...
[2008-04-04 11:29:43] <kendy> sb_: One thing, closer to the
implementation, the rpath for the libraries is set where, please?
[2008-04-04 11:29:52] <kendy> [I guess somewhere in solenv?]
[2008-04-04 11:30:08] <sb_> yes, let me have a look...
[2008-04-04 11:31:08] <kendy> solenv/inc/unxlng*.mk it seems, right?
[2008-04-04 11:31:22] <sb_> look for LINKFLAGSRUNPATH_... in
solenv/inc/unx*.mk and solenv/inc/tg_app|shl.mk
[2008-04-04 11:32:13] <kendy> sb_: Asking for the case I/we experimented
with URE in /usr ;-)
[2008-04-04 11:32:14] <sb_> the individual shls and apps in their
makefile.mks use things like APPnRPATH=UREBIN or SHLnRPATH=BRAND to say
where they reside, so a correct RPATH is computed for each
[2008-04-04 11:32:33] <sb_> kendy: no need to change anything then:
[2008-04-04 11:33:29] <sb_> the RPATHs use things like
$ORIGIN/../ure-link/lib to find other layers, so if you keep the
ure-link symlink from basis to ure (and the basis-link symlink from
brand to basis) intact, everything should keep working fine
[2008-04-04 11:34:25] <kendy> sb_: OK, thanks
[2008-04-04 11:34:44] <kendy> So - I think I have no other questions for
today :-)
[2008-04-04 11:34:51] <obr> sb_: sorry, but I can not see any upgrade
story which doesn't involve external tooling. We are basically
sacrificing upgrading via rpm command line for the sake of sharing
packages across products
[2008-04-04 11:37:01] <sb_> obr: maybe, yes, lets talk about it offline ;)
[2008-04-04 11:37:46] <pmladek> sb_, obr: You might improve it if you
use the minot version in the name just for the basis.
[2008-04-04 11:38:12] <sb_> but the basis is the largest blob :(
[2008-04-04 11:38:13] <pmladek> Anyway, I think that I do not any other
question as well.
[2008-04-04 11:38:49] <pmladek> sb_: I see
[2008-04-04 11:39:07] <sb_> so, shall we close for today?
[2008-04-04 11:39:15] <obr> ok
[2008-04-04 11:39:30] <sb_> bye!
[2008-04-04 11:39:31] <pmladek> I am fine with it. Thanks a lot for all
the answers.
[2008-04-04 11:39:37] <pmladek> Bye!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
