On Tuesday, May 12 2009, Daniel P. Berrange said:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:52:01AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > [I posted this before, but no one replied, so sending again to
> > fedora-devel-list]
> >
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225406#c7
> >
> > I would like to propose that e2fsprogs generate four subpackages for
> > the independent libraries that it contains. These four libraries are
> > used by other packages that don't need the whole of e2fsprogs-devel
> > (eg. krb5_workstation uses libss, qpid uses libuuid, and many programs
> > use libcom_err).
>
> I'm generally open to the suggestion, but last time I had this concern...
>
> > The next problem I see is that by putting things like blkid, uuidgen,
> > compile_et, mk_cmds into the lib$FOO packages, they are now no longer
> > multilib-safe; the binaries will collide.
The binaries won't end up colliding as rpm is (sort of) smart about
handing conflicting multilib binaries like this, but ...
> is this going to be a subpackage-explosion? for example:
>
> uuid.rpm (with the binary tool(s))
> uuid-libs.rpm
> uuid-devel.rpm
>
> and so on for each of the above binary+libs?
IMHO, having separate sub-packages for each of the command line tools
is overkill. Just put the libraries in -libs & -devel, but keep all
the binaries in e2fsprogs. This would avoid any multilib issues with
binaries, and keep the number of sub-packages sane.
This feels more reasonable anyway. Having binaries in a lib package is
just a little weird
Jeremy