On 02/14/2010 03:37 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Dave Plater wrote:
On 02/14/2010 12:42 PM, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
It is not just getting it to work, it is to make a promise for the future. If now you package it as libopenCOLLADA0 every new package with that name must be binary compatible with the old version. But you are not under control about that, upstream devs are the ones that decide if they want to break the compatibility.
Looking at the openCOLLADA website it seems they release 3DS Max/Maya plugins. The libOpenCOLLADABaseUtils.so and other libraries look like internal libraries to them, not something they think to release. So, what you need is to contact openCOLLADA devs and know what their plans are: - If they plan to release shared versions of these libs with a sane versioning scheme great. Meanwhile you can use the static versions. Or, if you think more packages will use this library before upstream releases an official version, use a soname that you know they will never use in the future (libOpenCOLLADABaseUtils.so.pre0a?) - If they have no plans to release shared versions bad luck. Perhaps they change the API too frequently and you will never get two packages able to compile with the same version. If so just use the static libs. Otherwise you can think about using your own sonames, but isn't something I would like to do in the long term... Perhaps you could talk with other distro packagers to make it easier and try to maintain some cross-distro compatibility.
I will follow the blender developers decisions because that's the package I maintain, the reason for building the shared libraries in the first place was because the developer of the blender collada section was using shared libraries. They also have a prebuilt dll for their ms windows build. Meanwhile, before I start searching for static lib packaging policies, is building blender against the static libraries and including them in the blender rpm ok?
That's probably the best given the current uncertain state of the library. Note that you then simply should not package shared libraries of collanda but instead only have a -devel package which contains the static libraries.
I don't quite understand the -devel package, should I still package the static libs? The blender-devel package is only for building blender plugins.
It would btw be a good idea to talk to the collanda developers that they fix their make system - a shared library without an SNOAME is broken and will not work.
Richard.
ATM the static version of the libs will only build with their supplied libxml and pcre due to a linker problem with finding pcre. The only successful build I get is with shared libs built against openSUSE libexpat1, the libxml2 build has problems, and libpcre0 has a posix and cpp variations to further confuse me. I'm still fixing the build problems and getting more knowledge of scons and gcc along the way and then I will make a bug at openCOLLADA. Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org