Hi Robert, On 24.11.2013 23:07, Robert Millan wrote: >>> This would simplify things a lot. We could move all of them to libzfs1 >>> and then we'd only have 2 binary packages (plus 2 udebs). >>> >> >> yes, that works. > > Is everyone okay with this approach? > > Arno, what do you think? this is only acceptable if the bundled libraries are versioned together. That means, whenever the SONAME of a bunlded library changes (or is in any way ABI incompatible), we must change all other SONAMEs, library version and the package names too. For example, if libnvpair1 changes the signature of a single function, we'd have to bump the SONAME and make a binary package libnvpair2. Now, if that library is bundled in a libzfs1 along with others, we need to rename the library package to libzfs2, and bump the SONAMEs of all other libraries to keep them co-installable with the former libzfs1. In practice this is not so much of a problem, because we're the only consumers of that library for now, and I guess it's not properly versioned anyway as upstream doesn't release those library independent of the binaries anyway. Therefore, that approach might work. However, keep in mind that some of the libraries we'd package together might be used in other FreeBSD native binaries, too - e.g. think of dtrace which uses some of them as far as I remember for our port attempts on that. Thing is we /call/ this libzfs, but most of them are really completely unrelated to ZFS. They are mostly library functions for more or less generic use cases used within the FreeBSD project. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature