[repo-coord] Re: Sub-Repo for Yum and Smart

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:40:31PM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 23:12, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:01:02PM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> > > I am willing to contribute to a micro-repo dedicated to providing a
> > > common rpm, yum, and smart setup for at least the distros I
> > > mentioned above.  I'd also be willing to not continue the yum20
> > > line at all; but, I see that the political strings would be
> > > difficult to pull.
> >
> > Why not include apt and perhaps even yum20 in this common
> > infrastructure repo? 
> 
> Either way, I was just throwing it out as a discussion point.
> 
> > > Anyway, I started working on libxml2 stuff and thought, I should
> > > take this from atrpms.  Then, I looked at repo-coord and thought
> > > maybe we should startup this discussion...
> >
> > I wouldn't mind, I would just need a copy of it in ATrpms to keep the
> > package set closed (and it should still build on the older distros).
> >
> > It is also needed in a common infrastructure repo for a yum rpm.
> 
> Just curious, I have been studying this some more. You provide a direct 
> upgrade of 2.5.10 to 2.6.19 from atrpms, however, it doesn't appear 
> that you've attempted to rectify ABI problems with the upgrade.

There is backward ABI compatibility, which is why the major lib
version hasn't been bumped. If not, then upstream development would
had been very sloppy.

> The deps work out in favor of this upgrade; but, do the programs
> such as memprof, scrollkeeper, kdelibs, etc. etc. all actually
> function properly?
> 
> For example, gstreamer shows:
> 
> [pyvault at plain pyvault]$ ldd /usr/lib/libgstreamer-0.6.so
>         libxml2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 (0x00111000)
> 
> No one has seen any problems with this?

No, and libxml bugs surface pretty soon, at the very least in kdelibs.

> Also, if we were to attempt to keep the Core libs and files intact,
> how would we provide 2.5.10 through this link?

You can't. If a project has N releases with libfoo.so.7 where would
you put the N-1 other libfoo.so.7?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20050916/b8f2f1c9/attachment.bin