Wouldn't that be something best left to the Fedora folks to decide? They have been bundling OMPI with Fedora for a long time, and knew we were including libevent since the beginning.
You are welcome to remind them of it - might be best to see what they have to say before we jump. On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion_at_[hidden]> wrote: > >> I'm starting to take a look at updating openmpi in Fedora to 1.7. It > >> looks like openmpi is now bundling a copy of libevent, which is generally > >> forbidden in Fedora. > > > FWIW, we've always bundled libevent -- ever since 1.0. It was made a little > > more obvious in 1.7 because we shifted some things around in the build > > system, but it's always been there. > > >> Is there any work being done on allowing one to compile against an > >> external libevent library? > > > > We have not done this because OMPI is fairly tied to the specific version > > of libevent that is bundled. > > > Given that OMPI has *always* bundled libevent, how terrible would it be to > > just let that continue? > > Well, it goes against Fedora policy and now that it has been detected, > something has to be done about it. We can apply for an exception, in which > case we need to answer the following questions from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions > > Has the library behaviour been modified? If so, how has it been modified? > If the library has been modified in ways that change the API or behaviour > then there may be a case for copying. Note that fixing bugs is not grounds to > copy. If the library has not been modified (ie: it can be used verbatim in > the distro) there's little chance of an exception. > Why haven't the changes been pushed to the upstream library? If no > attempt has been made to push the changes upstream, we shouldn't be > supporting people forking out of laziness. > Have the changes been proposed to the Fedora package maintainer for > the library? In some cases it may make sense for our package to take the > changes despite upstream not taking them (for instance, if upstream for the > library is dead). > Could we make the forked version the canonical version within Fedora? For > instance, if upstream for the library is dead, is the package we're working > on that bundles willing to make their fork a library that others can link > against? > Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application? > If so why aren't we proposing that the library be released as a fork of the > upstream library? > Is upstream keeping the base library updated or are they continuously one > or more versions behind the latest upstream release? > What is the attitude of upstream towards bundling? (Are they eager to > remove the bundled version? are they engaged with the upstream for the > library? Do they have a history of bundling? Are they argumentative?) > Overview of the security ramifications of bundling > Does the maintainer of the Fedora package of the library being bundled > have any comments about this? > Is there a plan for unbundling the library at a later time? Include things > like what features would need to be added to the upstream library, a timeline > for when those features would be merged, how we're helping to meet those > goals, etc. > > So, would you be willing to provide more of the rationale as to why libevent > is bundled? > > Thanks! > > > -- > Orion Poplawski > Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 > NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 > 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com > Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
