On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt <jeng...@inai.de> wrote:
> On Sunday 2016-07-10 13:13, Quentin Glidic wrote: > > > > If we install only one .pc file: > > - You cannot develop against an old version. > > I do not feel that is true. If you have Berkeley DB 4.5 in tarball > form, you can build and `make install` it. Provided the SONAME is > different (it is; libdb-4.5.so), it *ought* not to break the rest of > your system which relies on libdb-4.8.so. > > If you have db 4.5 in distropackage form, you can install the > libdb-4_5.rpm library, and it won't kick out libdb-4_8, and you can > install libdb-4_5-devel.rpm, which only kicks out libdb-4_8-devel, > but that is a negligible fact, as distro build results show that > no one seriously needs 4.5 and 4.8 at the same time a particular > software component is built. > > The example extends to packages other than bdb. (bdb has no .pc > file, which is the same complexity class a one .pc file.) Hi Jan, I think Quentin raised a good point, though. In source-based distros, well, in Gentoo at least which I use almost exclusively, there are no separate -devel packages. I haven't even looked at how Gentoo would solve the issue where you cannot install multiple versions of library headers to allow installing (which implies building from source) two different programs each depending on the different version of the library and headers. Would it be so bad to assume that compositor projects would not bother supporting more than one (or few at most) libweston MAJOR at a time? OTOH, would adding a new libweston MAJOR in an already stable and released binary distribution be absolutely forbidden? It would by definition not affect anything the distribution was released with, unless libweston's dependencies changed, but I think the dependencies might change less often than we bump MAJOR. I believe the burden of adding pkg-config checks will be insignificant compared to the work needed for a compositor project to actually work with multiple libweston MAJORs. It's good have a seasoned packager like you (thanks for the introduction, puts your comments in whole different perspective for me!) to comment on these things. There are more issues I'd like someone to sanity-check after this versioning issue gets resolved. It would essentially boil down to checking Weston's README for the packager notes if they make sense as a plan, and what we could do to help packaging. In summary, the only downside from installing all devel files MAJOR-specific is that user projects need multiple pkg-config checks if they want to support multiple MAJORs, right? I'd vote for taking that hit and seeing if anyone complains loud enough. Thanks, pq
pgpRLLH1oYklk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
