Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:15 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
Seems like a decent idea to move to filesystem.
~spot
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:15 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
Seems like a decent idea to move to filesystem.
Can we please not change our stance on this every other release ? I've added tons of Requires: automake for this exact reason. And it doesn't seem like a big burden for a devel package to require automake. If we are not talking about devel packages, then that would be the thing to fix...
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:15 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really don't need to require automake for normal usage. Should all of these packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
Seems like a decent idea to move to filesystem.
Can we please not change our stance on this every other release ? I've added tons of Requires: automake for this exact reason. And it doesn't seem like a big burden for a devel package to require automake. If we are not talking about devel packages, then that would be the thing to fix...
Technically, we're not really changing our stance here.
If all of the packages putting aclocal bits are -devel packages, then it should be ok to let automake own that directory, and have those -devel packages depend on automake. If we've got non-devel packages doing this, then we need to look into moving that directory ownership to something more universal, like filesystem.
The stance here is that packages need to Require (either directly, or implicitly through a dep chain) the packages which provide directories that they put files in.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Technically, we're not really changing our stance here.
If all of the packages putting aclocal bits are -devel packages, then it should be ok to let automake own that directory, and have those -devel packages depend on automake. If we've got non-devel packages doing this, then we need to look into moving that directory ownership to something more universal, like filesystem.
It was a -devel package in question, so we'll have it require automake ( though it still rankles a little - the -devel package is easily used without automake).
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:24:35PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Technically, we're not really changing our stance here.
If all of the packages putting aclocal bits are -devel packages, then it should be ok to let automake own that directory, and have those -devel packages depend on automake. If we've got non-devel packages doing this,
I don't think every package shipping an autoconf macro should mandatorily depend in automake. It should be left to the packager. So if /usr/share/aclocal isn't owned by the filesystem package, packages have to own /usr/share/aclocal.
-- Pat
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Matthias Clasen -
Orion Poplawski -
Patrice Dumas -
Tom Callaway