https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #17)
> (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #15)
> > > Open issues with *-2:
> > > * [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed
> > > - Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel"
> > > - Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin
> > > to %configure
> >
> > Why is this a MUSTFIX?
> To put it bluntly: because bundling is harmful, stupid and dumb.
>
> Less bluntly: bundling renders packages unmaintainable, vulnerable and
> causes bloat.
To expand a bit on this, because Ranjan is a new packager, and is most likely
not aware of the long history of this topic ;):
Bundling used to be totally forbidden, with exceptions reluctantly granted
by the Fedora Packaging Committee. This policy was recently relaxed [1,2],
but bundling is still best avoided [3]. When the bundled library is already
packaged, it is required to use the system-wide copy:
"All packages whose upstreams allow them to be built against system libraries
must be built against system libraries."
The old policy [4] explains why bundling is bad. Please note that those
considerations are still valid, and the policy was only relaxed because
people were tired of fighting with unreasonable upstreams and massive
amounts of bundled code in some projects.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1483
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1491
[3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries
[4]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries&oldid=406058
> > Building against sylpheed will mean requiring the
> > package for installation. It reduces the package size from 91k to 46k which
> > is not much, however, requiring sylpheed for someone who does not intend to
> > use sylpheed for this purpose would increase his/her pulled-in RPM size by
> > 7.8M (which is what sylpheed's RPM is).
> Size-wise bundling causes bloat because each statically linked packages
> re-adds the same libraries over and over again.
With today's disks, extra 8MB in files on disk is really unimportant.
Even if sylpheed is installed, nothing is run by default, so apart from
a bit of disk space this doesn't cause any problems. So even if the libs*
are *not* split out, it would be totally fine for sylfilter package to pull
in sylpheed.
Of course it is nice to split out libs* and avoid this bit
of bloat, but it's not that much of an issue, and no reason to hold up
the review. Currently sylpheed.rpm provides libsylph-0.so.1()(64bit),
and rpm will automatically generate a dependency on this in sylfilter.rpm.
If/when libs* are split out, this dependency will be satisfied by the
libs* subpackage. That's all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
