[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: DNF vs YUM, $pkg, $pkg-mpi, $pkg-openmpi having same provides
From:       Zbigniew =?utf-8?Q?J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= <zbyszek () in ! waw ! pl>
Date:       2015-06-22 13:20:22
Message-ID: 20150622132022.GI27014 () in ! waw ! pl
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:44:29AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16.06.2015 17:02, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > On 16.06.2015 00:30, Susi Lehtola wrote:
> > > > On 06/14/2015 03:02 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > > > > On 14.06.2015 16:28, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > > > > > Rules to generate such requires/provides:
> > > > > > * Provides: if the path of the library starts with $MPI_LIB, append
> > > > > > the (openmpi) resp (mpich) to the provides string
> > > > > > * Requires: if the path of the scanned object starts with $MPI_LIB and
> > > > > > the required library exists in $MPI_LIB, add (openmpi) resp (mpich) to
> > > > > > the requires string
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Overriding the find-requires.sh could be done with a
> > > > > > %{?openmpi_package_header}.
> > > > > Concrete examples:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://smani.fedorapeople.org/mpi-find-provides
> > > > > https://smani.fedorapeople.org/mpi-find-requires
> > > > > 
> > > > > Konsole output
> > > > > $ echo -e
> > > > > "/usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libnglib-5.3.1.so\n/usr/lib64/libnglib-5.3.1.so"
> > > > > > ./mpi-find-provides
> > > > > libnglib-5.3.1.so()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
> > > > > libnglib-5.3.1.so()(64bit)
> > > > Sounds even better... although your links give HTTP 403.
> > > Thanks for the feedback. Permissions fixed, sorry about that.
> > > 
> > > To discuss this further, should it be drafted as a Change and go to
> > > FESCO, or rather filed as an FPC ticket?
> > The find-* scripts should probably be a bug filed against RPM.
> > 
> > If written packaging guidelines are needed in addition to just adding the \
> > scripts, that would be a FPC ticket. 
> > A Change is necessary neither for new features in RPM (though you can write one \
> > if you want users of F23 to know about it) nor for packaging guidelines additions \
> > to be applied in future packages.  A Change would be desirable if the packaging \
> > guidelines change involved a coordinated mass change, i.e. "everyone else please \
> > update your packages to help make this happen".
> Ok, the bug is
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232504
> 
> and I've also filed a self-contained change proposal since some
> coordination will be needed to rebuild all MPI packages if this gets
> accepted:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Smani/RpmMPIReqProv
> 
> I'd need a proven packager willing to do the mass-rebuild though.
I can do that.

Zbyszek
-- 
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]