10:12 a.m.
libQGLViewer (http://www.libqglviewer.com/) is a library that can be build
with either Qt4 or Qt5, with recent versions.
I am considering providing packages build with both Qt4 and Qt5. I personally
need both versions for my daily job (to test compatibility). I do not think we
already have such libraries in Fedora. Do we have relevant packaging
guidelines for such a case?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/libQGLViewer
--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
12:02 p.m.
Laurent Rineau wrote:
libQGLViewer (http://www.libqglviewer.com/) is a library that can be
build
with either Qt4 or Qt5, with recent versions.
I am considering providing packages build with both Qt4 and Qt5. I
personally need both versions for my daily job (to test compatibility).
Ideally, if both versions are needed, then each one (Qt4 and Qt5 version)
should be installable in parallel.
-- Rex
12:08 p.m.
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 17:12 +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
libQGLViewer (http://www.libqglviewer.com/) is a library that can be
build
with either Qt4 or Qt5, with recent versions.
I am considering providing packages build with both Qt4 and Qt5. I personally
need both versions for my daily job (to test compatibility). I do not think we
already have such libraries in Fedora. Do we have relevant packaging
guidelines for such a case?
It's pretty similar to the case of Python2 and Python3, as detailed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python . I guess the principles
there are generally applicable.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:40 a.m.
Laurent Rineau wrote:
libQGLViewer (http://www.libqglviewer.com/) is a library that can be
build
with either Qt4 or Qt5, with recent versions.
I am considering providing packages build with both Qt4 and Qt5. I
personally need both versions for my daily job (to test compatibility). I
do not think we already have such libraries in Fedora. Do we have relevant
packaging guidelines for such a case?
You should build both versions. The 2 versions should NOT conflict; if they
do, please get upstream to rename their libraries to fix the conflict.
Kevin Kofler
9:53 a.m.
Le Wednesday 05 March 2014 18:40:10 Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Laurent Rineau wrote:
> libQGLViewer (http://www.libqglviewer.com/) is a library that can be build
> with either Qt4 or Qt5, with recent versions.
>
> I am considering providing packages build with both Qt4 and Qt5. I
> personally need both versions for my daily job (to test compatibility). I
> do not think we already have such libraries in Fedora. Do we have relevant
> packaging guidelines for such a case?
You should build both versions. The 2 versions should NOT conflict; if they
do, please get upstream to rename their libraries to fix the conflict.
What do you mean? Currently, the library compiled with Qt4 is:
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so -> libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
Do you suggest that the upstream project should have a different library name
when it is compiled with Qt4 and Qt5? Why is that better than the following
suggestion:
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so -> libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/Qt5/libQGLViewer.so -> libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/Qt5/libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
Note: you can see that the SONAME of libQGLViewer is libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1. I
have encoded that SONAME in the RPM spec, because the upstream project does
not handle ELF versionning correctly: they declare libQGLViewer.so.2 as
SOVERSION for all versions, whereas the binary compatibility is never ensured:
http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/libqglviewer.html
The upstream developers do not seem to know who to deal with binary
compatibility. That is a different issue.
--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
1:58 p.m.
Laurent Rineau wrote:
Do you suggest that the upstream project should have a different
library
name when it is compiled with Qt4 and Qt5?
Yes, see Rex Dieter's reply.
Why is that better than the following suggestion:
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so -> libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/Qt5/libQGLViewer.so -> libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/Qt5/libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1
Because that suggestion relies on rpath (yuck!), -L flags and similar hacks
to select the correct version. It also tries to establish a standard
"/usr/lib64/Qt5" that has no uptake from other packages, the other upstreams
are renaming their libraries (e.g., all the KDE ones, and even Qt itself).
The Qt 5 version should be something like:
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer-qt5.so → libQGLViewer-qt5.so.2.5.1
/usr/lib64/libQGLViewer-qt5.so.2.5.1
(Please do not rename the Qt 4 version, for backwards compatibility.)
And the libQGLViewer-qt5.so name should really get upstreamed.
Kevin Kofler
3741
days inactive
3743
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adam Williamson -
Kevin Kofler -
Laurent Rineau -
Rex Dieter