[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable
From: Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayat.fwd () gmail ! com>
Date: 2015-02-20 8:17:13
Message-ID: 54E6EAB9.1080609 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
/*Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>*/ wrote on Mon, 16 Feb 2015
17:17:32 +0100:
> On 02/16/2015 05:10 PM, Martyn Foster wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at
>> <mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at>> wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Meng wrote:
>> > Maintaining several version of the same library is not easy as
>> you think,
>> > basically once a developer wants to install version X while
>> then another
>> > people want to deploy things based on version Y, how to crack
>> this nut?
>> > You can't just care about runtime.
>>
>> Then you need to patch one or the other package to work with the
>> same
>> version. Only if that is not possible, a compatibility library
>> can be
>> considered. But we should always first try to make everything work
>> with the
>> same version (if possible, the newer one).
>>
>>
>> The requirement to work with multiple versions of a package come up in
>> the scientific/HPC community very frequently. Its not always about API
>> compatibility, sometimes exact numerical reproduction is required which
>> isn't preserved even between minor versions (i.e. an OS update).
> I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora.
>
> Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such
> regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by compat-libs.
>
> Ralf
>
>
I guess the main point is missed completely. The main proposal is not
mainly about compatibility. It's about providing latest development
libraries in stable releases for *user* consumption (not for distro
one). Also, the compatibility package is solely provided for user
consumption; *no* Fedora package should be built against it (unless it
happens already).
There are some arguments against providing such thing in Fedora, but if
someone wants to install two versions of the same library (e.g.
installing the latest version for development while having default
version for Fedora packages); he'll do it anyway. So, if such packages
are not provided by Fedora, he will install from source. So, the user
will install multiple versions anyway. Do you want to support him, or not?
Regards,
Hedayat
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<html style="direction: ltr;">
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style>
</head>
<body style="direction: ltr;" bidimailui-charset-is-forced="true"
smarttemplateinserted="true" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="smartTemplate4-template"> </div>
<br>
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<style type="text/css">
blockquote [[ /*Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100*/ color: navy !important; \
background-color: RGB(245,245,245) !important; padding: 0 15 10 15 !important; \
margin: 15 0 0 0; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid;]]
blockquote blockquote {{ /*Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100*/ color: maroon \
!important; background-color: RGB(235,235,235) !important; border-left-color:maroon \
!important}}
blockquote blockquote blockquote {{ /*Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100*/ color: green \
!important; background-color: RGB(225,225,225) !important; border-left-color:teal \
!important}}
blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote {{ /*Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100*/ \
color: purple !important; background-color: RGB(215,215,215) !important; \
border-left-color: purple !important}}
blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote {{ /*Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 \
+0100*/ color: teal !important; background-color: RGB(205,205,205) !important; \
border-left-color: green !important}} </style><i><b>Ralf Corsepius <a \
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" \
href="mailto:rc040203@freenet.de"><rc040203@freenet.de></a></b></i> wrote on \
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:17:32 +0100:</div> <blockquote \
cite="mid:54E2181C.4080207@freenet.de" type="cite">On 02/16/2015 05:10 PM, Martyn \
Foster wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On 16 February 2015 at 15:12, Kevin Kofler
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" \
href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at"><mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at></a>> \
wrote: <br>
<br>
Christopher Meng wrote:
<br>
> Maintaining several version of the same library is not
easy as you think,
<br>
> basically once a developer wants to install version X
while then another
<br>
> people want to deploy things based on version Y, how to
crack this nut?
<br>
> You can't just care about runtime.
<br>
<br>
Then you need to patch one or the other package to work with
the same
<br>
version. Only if that is not possible, a compatibility
library can be
<br>
considered. But we should always first try to make
everything work
<br>
with the
<br>
same version (if possible, the newer one).
<br>
<br>
<br>
The requirement to work with multiple versions of a package come
up in
<br>
the scientific/HPC community very frequently. Its not always
about API
<br>
compatibility, sometimes exact numerical reproduction is
required which
<br>
isn't preserved even between minor versions (i.e. an OS update).
<br>
</blockquote>
I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora.
<br>
<br>
Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such
regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by
compat-libs.
<br>
<br>
Ralf
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I guess the main point is missed completely. The main proposal is
not mainly about compatibility. It's about providing latest
development libraries in stable releases for *user* consumption (not
for distro one). Also, the compatibility package is solely provided
for user consumption; *no* Fedora package should be built against it
(unless it happens already).<br>
<br>
There are some arguments against providing such thing in Fedora, but
if someone wants to install two versions of the same library (e.g.
installing the latest version for development while having default
version for Fedora packages); he'll do it anyway. So, if such
packages are not provided by Fedora, he will install from source.
So, the user will install multiple versions anyway. Do you want to
support him, or not?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Hedayat<br>
</body>
</html>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic