On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Cristian Rodr?guez wrote:

El mar 03 jul 2012 12:58:16 CLT, Cristian Morales Vega escribi?:

...

On 3 July 2012 16:27, Peter Linnell wrote:

...

Hi Christian,

This all looks good, but can you revert the pkgconfig stuff, so it will build at least on SLES11 SP2 ?

I'd prefer not to break this unessecarily on the lates SLE.

Thanks!

Peter

On 07/02/2012 02:23 PM, christian.morales.vega@gmail.com wrote:

...

home:RedDwarf:branches:network:utilities/aria2-parts -> network:utilities/aria2

https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/126938

pkg-config()-style dependencies

Pros: - Cross-distro compatibility - Immune to package renames and splits (and someday someone is going to decide splitting libqt4-devel is a good idea...)

Cons: - They don't work with SLE and Evergreen

Could we decide on an official policy about this?

My vote is for: a) Prefer the use of pkgconfig() dependencies b) If compatibility with old distributions is desired do the changes in the old distributions

My vote is to not prefer this syntax as long as pkgconfig scripts are buggy and bloated, they either pull unneeded indirect dependencies or packages needed for static linking.

Ah, and I forget they do not work for multilibs as pkgconfig has no designed way to distinguish them. Richard. -- Richard Guenther SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

On 4 July 2012 09:27, Richard Guenther wrote:

...

Ah, and I forget they do not work for multilibs as pkgconfig has no designed way to distinguish them.

First and most important: How can I distinguish them when *not* using pkgconfig() BuildRequires?

BuildRequires: glibc-devel-32bit

And even if pkg-config itself has no way to distinguish them /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh could be modified to include arch information (upstream, to preserve cross-distro compatibility).

That's true. But then we are not using pkgconfig (well, we are not anyways, we are just creating fake pkgconfig(foo) provides). Richard. -- Richard Guenther SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 4 July 2012 15:03, Richard Guenther wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

...

On 4 July 2012 09:27, Richard Guenther wrote:

...

Ah, and I forget they do not work for multilibs as pkgconfig has no designed way to distinguish them.

First and most important: How can I distinguish them when *not* using pkgconfig() BuildRequires?

BuildRequires: glibc-devel-32bit

So you need an openSUSE specific hack... that lets you add extra provides with a single extra line. mkbaselibs could be modified to automatically add "pkgconfig(X)(32bit)" provides to them if that would be really necessary. But really, this is sooo openSUSE specific that I don't care if pkgconfig(X) style provides are not used in these cases.

...

And even if pkg-config itself has no way to distinguish them /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh could be modified to include arch information (upstream, to preserve cross-distro compatibility).

That's true. But then we are not using pkgconfig (well, we are not anyways, we are just creating fake pkgconfig(foo) provides).

Yes, the provides are the only important thing here. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 10 July 2012 07:53, Ralf Lang wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Am 04.07.2012 16:27, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:

...

So you need an openSUSE specific hack... that lets you add extra provides with a single extra line. mkbaselibs could be modified to automatically add "pkgconfig(X)(32bit)" provides to them if that would be really necessary.

Wasn't the argument for this potentially tedious rewrite that it's more cross-distro?

Is one of two arguments. And just after I already said: "But really, this is sooo openSUSE specific that I don't care if pkgconfig(X) style provides are not used in these cases." Really, just forget about the multilib argument. Sure, not surprisingly the openSUSE specific feature breaks cross-distro compatibility. But since it's something that is used by X packages while there are 1000X packages using libraries without a pkg-config at all it is totally negligible. __ANY__ "but in the *specific* case X you can't use pkgconfig() BuildRequires" is not important because in the *common* case of a library not providing a .pc file we already have _exactly_ the same "problem". Anyway, what I wanted was to define a policy. But seeing the reactions I don't think that's going to be possible. The only real argument I saw against it was the "So we'd have a mix of ways anyway which I do not like very much", that I don't consider a problem. So I will continue with the status quo: I will use pkgconfig() BuildRequires in my request just hoping nobody rejects them because of that. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 3 July 2012 18:55, Křištof Želechovski wrote:

Dnia wtorek, 3 lipca 2012 17:58:16 Cristian Morales Vega pisze:

...

On 3 July 2012 16:27, Peter Linnell wrote:

...

Hi Christian,

This all looks good, but can you revert the pkgconfig stuff, so it will build at least on SLES11 SP2 ?

I'd prefer not to break this unessecarily on the lates SLE.

How about using an %if block with resolved dependencies for SLES? I remember having done that and it worked.

It would be better to have the Substitutes in SUSE:SLE-11:SP2 than in the devel project to avoid duplicating. For the same reason it is better to have it in the devel project than in the package. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 4 July 2012 09:26, Richard Guenther  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
>
>> On 3 July 2012 16:27, Peter Linnell  wrote:
>> > Hi Christian,
>> >
>> > This all looks good, but can you revert the pkgconfig stuff, so it will
>> > build at least on SLES11 SP2  ?
>> >
>> > I'd prefer not to break this unessecarily on the lates SLE.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > On 07/02/2012 02:23 PM, christian.morales.vega@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    home:RedDwarf:branches:network:utilities/aria2-parts -> network:utilities/aria2
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/126938
>>
>>
>> pkg-config()-style dependencies
>>
>> Pros:
>> - Cross-distro compatibility
>
> Which means disallowing patching or generation of pkgconfig files
> ourselves.

What's the point of .pc files if they are not upstream? Just upstream
your patches and generated .pc files.

>> - Immune to package renames and splits (and someday someone is going
>> to decide splitting libqt4-devel is a good idea...)
>>
>> Cons:
>> - They don't work with SLE and Evergreen
> - Cannot split -devel packages properly.  Like the -devel-static
>   packages cannot be required this way.
>
> So we'd have a mix of ways anyway which I do not like very much.

I think there are more -devel packages without a .pc file than
-devel-static packages. It's already accepted that it would be a mix.
But you still get the pros for the cases where you use the pkgconfig()
BuildRequires.
With some luck the few cases where you can't use them will have the
same package name in other distros and will not be renamed/splitted.
In the rest of cases... well, you didn't win anything but neither did
you lose.
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Dnia środa, 4 lipca 2012 12:22:13 todd rme pisze:

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Cristian Morales Vega

Off-Topic: Is there an official place for such requests? I have a few of my own.

I suppose that requests regarding SLE are best directed to the technical support @SUSE. Chris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

The next major release of SLE - SLE12 - will be using openSUSE as upstream again, so anything we do in openSUSE might go in.

For a Service Pack like SP3, there're no plans to make a major change like making it pkg-config friendly. This has to wait for SLE12,

I don't know of any schedule, which may mean we have to have separate specs for SLE for years. No fun. - -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/70dQACgkQCs1dsHJ/X7B6GQCdEpHlJLZYYja3t7PSs8gkMB0o 6RYAniVVsN9NKggvXTVoPP59GXj2IWTU =Z8kH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org