1 |
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:36 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop |
3 |
> software for "Linux". Instead (like valve), people start to develop for |
4 |
> certain distros only (like Ubuntu), because it's just too much work to |
5 |
> bother with all this hackery-here-hackery-there-incompatible-here |
6 |
> things. Maybe also a reason they start to bundle all libraries for every |
7 |
> single game (among the convenience factor), effectively decreasing |
8 |
> security overall. |
9 |
|
10 |
I'm with you here, but what is the solution? |
11 |
|
12 |
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files |
13 |
at all (in these cases). Then when Debian does the other upstreams |
14 |
use them and then those packages break on Gentoo. People are still |
15 |
going to target their favorite distro no matter what we do. |
16 |
|
17 |
The only people with the power to break the distro-targeting behavior |
18 |
are the maintainers of the upstream packages. The linux kernel |
19 |
maintains a few stable branches with well-defined support periods, and |
20 |
as a result you can bet that just about any distro is going to be on |
21 |
one of them. Few other projects take this kind of care. Indeed, some |
22 |
upstreams can't be bothered to change their SONAME when their ABI |
23 |
changes. |
24 |
|
25 |
You could try to get distros to come together, but that tends not to |
26 |
work either. The minor distros all have lots of incentive to do this, |
27 |
but nobody cares about targeting them. The really big distros don't |
28 |
have incentive to play along, because they can just tell everybody |
29 |
that if their software breaks on their distro it is their problem. |
30 |
Then you have companies like RedHat which want to differentiate |
31 |
themselves so the last thing they want is to make other distros as |
32 |
robust, and to be fair they don't want to do the integration work only |
33 |
to have others mooch. |
34 |
|
35 |
So, in your mind what would a sane policy look like? Should packages |
36 |
like lua not provide pkg-config files even though apparently every |
37 |
other distro does? If so, where do we draw the line? Do we follow |
38 |
some particular distro like Debian? Do we list 4 distros and allow |
39 |
the file if 3/4 use it? If we don't allow a pkg-config in general can |
40 |
maintainers still have a "gentoo-foo" file? |
41 |
|
42 |
If we want a firm policy then there needs to be a proposal for one |
43 |
that makes sense. Otherwise the council is 95% likely to just say "we |
44 |
recommend that maintainers use care when creating pkg-config files but |
45 |
we leave it to their discretion," because that is the only thing that |
46 |
makes any sense when you can't come up with a rule that makes sense. |
47 |
|
48 |
Rich |