From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lucy.dinwoodie.org (lucy.dinwoodie.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:de15:20ad:6beb:fd8f:c6fd:d1ac]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6051B3858D28 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:16:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6051B3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dinwoodie.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dinwoodie.org Received: from adam by lucy.dinwoodie.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1pFkKj-000IUe-1M for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:16:37 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:16:37 +0000 From: Adam Dinwoodie To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ITP] libinih Message-ID: <20230111231637.dbjlug2kpb2oa47i@lucy.dinwoodie.org> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20230109163223.74r473jljrxx5zsv@lucy.dinwoodie.org> <0ab55d15-f73d-b471-52c4-07c6acc829fb@dronecode.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0ab55d15-f73d-b471-52c4-07c6acc829fb@dronecode.org.uk> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed 11 Jan 2023 at 03:14:20PM +0000, Jon Turney wrote: > On 09/01/2023 16:32, Adam Dinwoodie via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > As requested at [0], I've offered to package libinih for Cygwin. It has > > a BSD license[1] and is already packaged for a bunch of *nix distros, > > including Fedora, Debian and Arch[2]. > > > > [0]: https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2023-January/252780.html > > [1]: https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > [2]: https://repology.org/project/inih/versions > > > > Provisional release packages are available at [3], and I've copied the > > main .hint file below for reference. > > > > [3]: https://github.com/me-and/Cygwin-inih/releases/tag/v56-1-rc1 > > Thanks. > > This looks good, except... > > > I've not maintained this sort of library before; I've defaulted to > > including everything in a single package, but Lem suggested splitting > > out a -devel package to contain the header files[4][5]. I don't think > > it makes much difference either way -- the monolithic package is only > > ~16 KB compressed -- and it seems plenty of other Cygwin packages have > > their header files in the same package as the runtime package, but I'd > > appreciate thoughts from everyone else on what's thought to be best > > practice these days... > > I'd ask you to split this into libinih0 and libinih-devel packages. > > Firstly, I don't want to get into making judgements about what the size > threshold is for a package to be "small enough to not bother". > > Secondly, I think, if there's ever a soversion change (i.e. cyginih-0.dll > becomes cyginih-1.dll), structuring it as a single package makes it > impossible to parallel install the old and new soversions together, thus > breaking any other packages linked with the old soversion until they are > rebuilt. Makes sense! Here's a rebuild: https://github.com/me-and/Cygwin-inih/releases/tag/v56-1-rc2 > If you're aware of other packages "done wrong" based on that understanding, > I guess that's something that needs looking into... Ah, I think I was thinking about this backwards. I'd thought that, for example, make is a problem, because it's not marked as a "*-devel" package, but it puts a header file in /usr/include as well as all the files needed by mere users of make.[0] [0]: https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=x86_64%2Fmake%2Fmake-4.4-1 It sounds like that's not a problem at all, though: make doesn't provide any libraries to link against. What might be more of a problem is something like file, which does provide a DLL for other packages to link against, and which isn't separated out into a "lib*" package.[1] [1]: https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=x86_64%2Ffile%2Ffile-5.41-2&grep=usr%2Fbin%2F.%2A%5C.dll (But maybe there's something about file that means we can be confident it'll never have an soversion change? Almost all my practical experience with wrangling library linking is with software appliances that ignore the issue by replacing all the binaries in an effectively- atomic operation, so I am well out of my areas of expertise here!)