Ticket #304 (new defect)

Opened 10 months ago

Last modified 10 months ago

asking for bundling exception for the package "rubygem-rdiscount"

Reported by: gerd Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: Guideline Draft Version:
Keywords: Cc:
Blocked By: Blocking:

Description

The problem is discussed in the bug report:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964940

%{_libdir}/libmarkdown.so

and

%{_libdir}/gems/exts/rdiscount-<version>/lib/rdiscount.so

depend on building from some same C source files.

The library 'rdiscount.so' is not in search path for libraries and will only be loaded with an ruby application. So are should not be a problem. I see no way to make a better build of the rubygem-rdiscount package.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 10 months ago by gerd

Typo: So there should not exist a problem.

comment:2 Changed 10 months ago by toshio

I see nothing in this ticket that would justify a bundling exception. it appears that your argument is that being equivalent to static linking is a valid reason for a bundling exception.

This is not the case.

Being equivalent to static linking could be a valid reason to allow static linking. Bundling is a different issue. Please read and understand: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries and consider answering the questions in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions as those might help your case.

comment:3 Changed 10 months ago by spot

This ticket is being tabled until the reporter provides the answers to the questions in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions

Once those answers are provided, we will consider this request.

comment:4 Changed 10 months ago by gerd

Sorry, I have had no time to answer the questions earlier.

  • Has the library behaviour been modified?

Some source files have been modified. Some functions have more parameters. I do not know why.

  • Could we make the forked version the canonical version within Fedora?

No, this should not be done. It should only be used within the rubygem.

  • Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application?

No

  • Is upstream keeping the base library updated or are they continuously one or more versions behind the latest upstream release?

The last time I looked at it, they use the current version.

  • What is the attitude of upstream towards bundling?

It is the standard way to building rubygems. This should also be a problem with other gems.

  • Overview of the security ramifications of bundling

There should not be a security problem. The code will used only in der ruby application.

  • Does the maintainer of the Fedora package of the library being bundled have any comments about this?

Not yet. I will a comment to package when I get the excepting of bundling.

  • Is there a plan for unbundling the library at a later time?

May be the way of building rubygems will change. May be the discount package be provide a static library and it is possible to link against this.

  • Please include any relevant documentation

URL: https://rubygems.org/gems/rdiscount

Owner: https://rubygems.org/profiles/rtomayko https://rubygems.org/profiles/davidfstr

bugzilla ticket: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964940

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.