[PATCHES] Generate shorter name for extra python files
lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Jul 6 10:28:50 UTC 2017
On (06/07/17 22:14), Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical wrote:
>On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 11:54 +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 15:26:33 CEST Lukas Slebodnik via samba-technical
>> > ehlo,
>> > Generating different name with different architecture and with the same
>> > version of python is not ideal. pkgconfig files should be architecture
>> > independent and libraries for different architectures are stored in
>> > different directories
>> > e.g. (/usr/lib64, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ ...)
>> > Therefore it will be simpler to remove architecture from names
>> > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pyldb-util.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.pc
>> > vs.
>> > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pyldb-util36.pc
>> > LS
>> Could we get new releases for talloc and ldb including this? Also
>> f5cafee0c7a96396798d2b229ff3f9dced1d74f3 is not part of a release!
>I'm a bit nervous about this. I tried to untangle a mess on Debian in
>this area, and ended up abandoning the py3 package for talloc with the
>parent commits to this:
>I'm not opposed to the idea in the patches, but I'm not sure it is
>changing enough, or the right things. The variables there have become
>a tangled mess!
I tent to agree.
>I realise this was 'just' trying to sort out pkgconfig, but we do need
>to sort out the ABI upstream, not in Debian etc, but I would love it if
>someone else could help me ensure that we could now re-enabled py3 in
>debian without hacks and with the right thing happening. Ideally we
>get this changed once, break the ABI once, and get this right.
It solved also libraries and not only pkgconfig files
And we need to have different name for library because
libpyldb-util3.6.so is linked against python3.6 and have to be used
only by python module for 3.6.
Standard libpyldb-util.so is linked with standard python (usually 2.7)
I am open to another suggestion for names. Maybe libpyldb-util-3.6.so
but that's minimal change.
Could you describe what kind of packaging problems did you have on debian?
It is not obvious for me from that commit.
More information about the samba-technical