Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (205 mails)

[Ralf Haferkamp <rhafer@xxxxxxx>]

On Montag 19 September 2011 15:50:29 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2011-09-19 14:58, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
[..]
> > One other change I'm seeing in some sr is the addition of devel
> > subpackages to baselibs.conf. I don't think it's needed in most
> > cases. Or is there some rationale for it?
Yeah, I was wondering about that as well.

> Often enough I have found myself in a position where I would like to
> test $PROGRAM in a non-default compilation mode, and that requires
> that all libraries also exist.
>
> (Point in case, I was asked to try prboom-plus in 32-bit mode, which
> required adding -devel to baselibs for at least the entire SDL stack.
> And some developers prefer a quick local compile rather than having to
> upload a new tarball into OBS and wait for the result -- also the
> latter has licensing constraints.)
>
> I am therefore of the opinion that -devel in [certain] baselibs that I
> am interested in is alright.
Wouldn't it be better to setup a 32bit chroot enviroment (or osc build) 
for such a usecase? It just seems wrong to ship lots of libraries and 
headers as -32bit packages for that purpose. IIRC the baselibs mechanism 
was introduced to just provide some core libraries to be able to run 
binaries which either don't build or are otherwise not available for the 
native (64bit) platform.

Ralf
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx