From: Matthias Koenig Subject: Re: [PATCH] obsolete libcom-err for SuSE e2fsprogs Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:27:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20070919061404.GA1628@schatzie.adilger.int> <46F1CFC0.3070801@redhat.com> <20070920050923.GX32520@schatzie.adilger.int> <46F2D678.4060203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35663 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750786AbXIYJX4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:23:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46F2D678.4060203@redhat.com> (Eric Sandeen's message of "Thu\, 20 Sep 2007 15\:22\:16 -0500") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Eric Sandeen writes: > Andreas Dilger wrote: >> On Sep 19, 2007 20:41 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Andreas Dilger wrote: >>>> It isn't possible to build an e2fsprogs via "make rpm" on SuSE and have it >>>> install cleanly, because they split out some of the libraries into separate >>>> packages. >>>> >>>> We've got the current patch to the .spec file, but I'm open to discussion >>>> if it is more desirable to change the .spec to continue to build separate >>>> RPMs (though that is more of a distribution hassle and might need major >>>> changes in the .spec file). >>> FWIW, I also have an RFE assigned to me for RHEL/Fedora to split up our >>> e2fsprogs packages for libcom_err and libuuid... since many >>> non-filesystem things now require them. So, this is sort of going in >>> the opposite direction. :) >>> >>> Any idea how many distros already split it out? >> >> I know Debian-based distros have done this for ages... >> >> I'd also welcome someone with rpm-fu split it into separate packages. > > I'd do this, my rpm-fu is still reasonably strong, though - I'm curious, > is there a compelling reason to split out just libcom-err? what about > libuuid? libblkid? e2fsprogs is a bit of a grab bag of things. What's > the rationale for the split? The Suse split out of library packages has been enforced by our new library packaging policy[1]. I think debian has a similar policy [2]. In openSUSE the splitted out library packages are libblkid1 libcom_err2 libext2fs2 libuuid1 with the corresponding development packages named with the -devel postfix but without the soname version appendix. There is currently also a dummy e2fsprogs-devel package for backwards compatibility. I am not sure how other RPM based distributions will handle this and if it is worth the effort to keep track of all this in one specfile. If needed I could take care for the Suse specific stuff. Matthias [1] http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy [2] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html