Re: Overeager cleaning of -devel provides

Jeff Johnson schreef op do 01-08-2013 om 20:55 [-0400]:
>=20
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Per =C3=98yvind Karlsen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> > 2013/8/1 Matthew Dawkins <[email protected]>
> >         I understand Multiarch quite well.
> > You obviously don't as you don't understand why one would install
> > both 32 & 64 bit builds of -devel packages simultanously..
>=20
>=20
> You don't understand the KISS
> of how Fedora (and Red Hat)
> solved the same issue:
>=20
>=20
>     All include files are identical on
>      all architectures.
>=20
>=20
> Root cause for file conflicts solved by
> patching sources _ONCE_ and Fedora/RedHat has done all the heavy
> lifting.
I guess it helps as a distributor to have main contributors that also
'own' the upstream or work for the largest Linux company.

Of course you can make a -devel package arch-agnostic, you just hide the
complexity in the package (and make it bigger because you need to store
all supported archs even if you don't need the other part)...for every
single package instead of in the packaging system. The KISS you see is
very superficial.

That's assuming -devel packages only every contain C/C++ header files...

>=20
> I dare you to suggest that I do not understand Mandriva's multi arch
> solution. The net effect of Mandriva's stubborn insistence on failed
> schemes like multi arch is vendor lock-in by making build recipes too
> different and too complicated to change.
>=20
>=20
> >         What is apparent is that you don't understand the library
> >         packaging policy all to well. So, go ahead and have a read:
> >         http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Libraries_policy
> >        =20
> >        =20
> >         There's two sections that pertain to your misconception of
> >         package names and provides that you particularly need to
> >         take note.
> >        =20
> >        =20
> >         The actual naming however _IS_VERY_ important. It's why the
> >         library naming policy for Mandriva mimics that of Debian's.
> >        =20
> > We're talking about naming of provides, not naming of packages.
> > =20
>=20
>=20
> There is a very simple solution that need not differentiate between
> provides and names and require "canonical" definitions and the endless
> nit-picks:
>=20
>=20
>        Don't do that!
>=20
>=20
> hth
>=20
>=20
> 73 de Jeff
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Per =C3=98yvind