[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21.

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 05:33:48PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> As for the packaging of those libs and of the binaries that were
> reduced, I'm not sure what would be best.  IIRC most stuff included in
> boot-floppies is taken right from real packages installed on the
> machine where they are built.  The e2fsprogs-bf I've built contains
> stuff in e2fsprogs, so mush conflict with him to be installed, which
> 1) is a pain for people building boot-floppies, 2) creates a package
> that noone should ever installed except for building boot-floppies.

The other issue is that the "lite" libext2fs.so.2.4 should never ever
be installed on a normal system, since it's missing a lot of necessary
object files.  In fact, when I was chatting with Larry McVoy, he
warned me that I might be unloosing a time-bomb that might come back
to haunt me.  My rejoinder was that users would *never* be quite so
stupid as to install the "lite" libext2fs on a normal system, but
Larry reminded me how completely idiotic users can be.

One other alternative is to actually build the library using a
completely different base-name (i.e., libext2fs-lite.so.2.4), and then
build binaries like this: mke2fs.lite and e2fsck.lite.  This has the
advantage that it makes it possible to install the shared-library and
binaries on a normal system, and it makes it less likely that the
"lite" version of libext2fs ever gets accidentally installed on a
normal system as system libext2fs library.

What do people think?

							- Ted

Reply to: