Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (129 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Extensions for specification of application binary/programming interfaces?

On Friday 2016-01-22 20:46, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
I suggest you cut the salesbabble, and come up with a *concrete* case
where the existing RPM mechanisms are insufficient, instead of making
up hypothetical blurry scenarios involving some unspecified packages
and interfaces.

How do you think about to make the combination of the properties
"application binary interface" and "application programming interface"
safer for software libraries like the following?

* libmodman1 / libproxy1
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=937157#c5
* yast2-core / libyui6
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=937665#c2

They both are a duplicate of
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903974
where I already bemoaned the lack of symbol versions.


Can specific certification marks help to make the reuse of some software
packages a bit safer?

Definitely.


Would you like to improve dependency resolution a bit more?

The dependency *resolution* is fine. The problem is with lazy upstream
developers who do not update these "marks" *at all* when they made
a change. They must do one of the following:

- change the SONAME (the mark changes from "libmodman.so.1" ->
"libmodman.so.2")

- add symbol versions (the mark changes from "libmodman.so.1(V_1)" to
"libmodman.so.1(V_2)")




* Difficulties with activation of another current Nvidia graphic driver

https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/512847-Difficulties-with-activation-of-another-current-Nvidia-graphic-driver

TL;DR. The ".run" installer from nvidia is a homebrew solution and
tramples on files managed by RPM - which subsequently get replaced
by RPM at some point again.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups