Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static
On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other reason than it eliminates ten lines from the specfile. The question was whether there is any pressing reason to refrain from removing it. - J< Compression libraries are an area where it's common to have special cases that need to bootstrap or otherwise provide a service outside of a sane/guaranteed dynamic library environment. As others have mentioned, this could mean early boot for RH-style systems, but it could be for any other reason for a specific site. zlib-static, bzip2-static, and xz-static have existed for forever, and lz4 should continue to follow suit. (And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212209 would be nice, since the subject is up.) If it's removed for the .spec (not just not included in a distro, but removed), then those who'd like to be able to use the package have to maintain a new local fork. That's not ideal. -jc ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static
On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. > > Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's > still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other > reason than it eliminates ten lines from the specfile. The question was > whether there is any pressing reason to refrain from removing it. Sure is! Byt I still don't think there's any benefit caring much about an additional sub-package in such a tiny package. In this case the changelog is actually 2/3 of the complete spec file. And these 10-11 lines (including blank lines) related to the -static subpackage are roughly 14% of the "non-changelog" section of the .spec file. But as I said earlier, for static libraries, it is harder to get some kind of usage statistics who uses them or not, as you only need that library during the compile time. So combine that with the effort of reducing the spec file with 10-11 lines, I'm not sure it's such a big difference in maintainability or the efforts required to keep them around. Just my 2 cents. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static
> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other reason than it eliminates ten lines from the specfile. The question was whether there is any pressing reason to refrain from removing it. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static
On 14/08/2019 07:49, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello, > > I found out that nothing in Fedora depends on lz4-static (neither > runtime nor buildtime). Is anybody using it or I'm free to drop it? > > Any thoughts? Ehm ... This is a _static_ library. Which means you can build against it, uninstall the lz4-static RPM and the built application still runs. What I'm trying to say that, even though no Fedora packages does not have a build dependency on this package, there might be other users of this library which does static builds of some binaries. That said, static builds have their own challenges (mostly security related) - but also use some real cases (like running code during early boot phase before file systems with shared libraries are available). So there been performed a good enough check that "nothing in Fedora depends on [it]"? Also consider that this is the static library is built by default, it is a tiny library which is really fast to build and the built binaries are less than a few megabytes all together. As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. But I might overlook something. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
