Re: libgsystem as a shared library

["Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre mecheye net>]

I mean, copylibs have existed forever, usually by just copying files around from project A to project B, and back from project B to project A. Why does structuring this process in a git submodule make it suddenly illegal in Fedora review?

I'm quite opposed to making gsystem a shared library. libgsystem is, to me, 1) a way to put non-portable Linux-specific or gcc-specific stuff, 2) a staging ground for GLib components, for projects that want to get real-world usage before they land in GLib. And I'm sort of not a fan of 2), since it means that there's no motivation to get stuff into GLib (think of all the churn that happened with GSubprocess).

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Debarshi Ray <rishi is lostca se> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:21:06PM +0000, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jasper St. Pierre
> <jstpierre mecheye net> wrote:
> >
> > What was the issue that happened in Fedora package review? Why
> > doesn't it apply to our copylibs right now, or e.g. libgd?
> >
> I think no one noticed libgd...review only happens on initial
> submission, there's no real rigorous ongoing process (I won't comment
> on the sanity of this model now).

Packages using libgd often have 'Provides: bundled(libgd)' in their
spec files.

Cheers,
Debarshi

--
Wearing non-prescription glasses and embracing obscurity doesn't
necessarily make you a hipster.  -- Anonymous
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

--
  Jasper