RPM and shared library support

[Charles Wilson]

Dario Alcocer wrote:

> 
> libz----\
>          +-librpmio---------------librpm
> libbz2--/        \                 /  |
>                   \               /   |
>                    +---librpmdb--+    /
>                   /                  /
>            libpopt------------------+
> 
> 
> Well, from the looks of it, we'll have to have shared libraries for
> libbz2, libz, and libpopt first before I can release an rpm-devel
> package.

I already ship the DLL for libbz2. Unless rpm has its own version of 
that, too?  If so, you forgot to list it in the first message in this 
thread.

> OK, so now it looks like rpm-devel will only need shared libs for libbz2
> and libpopt.

libbz2 -- already there
libpopt -- already there (unless you *need* the 1.7 version)

> I don't quite understand this comment; do you mean that we don't need
> rpm-devel? 

No, of course we don't NEED rpm-devel.  Honestly, we got along for years 
without rpm. <g>  AFAIK, there are very few apps out there that link 
against librpm -- apt-rpm is one of the few.  Most "rpm wrappers" that I 
know of COULD have been architected to link against librpm -- but 
instead simply fork/exec the rpm executable.

So, *except* for apt-rpm, librpm-devel is of limited utility in the 
grand scheme.  I say this not to discourage you, however -- I'm a 
stickler for completeness myself.  I wouldn't consider the rpm set of 
packages complete until it rpm-devel is published.  But I, me 
personally, I'm not in a huge hurry.

> Actually, I'd like to see it released soon myself. I'm
> deferring work on an apt-rpm port until the libbz2/libz/libpopt shared
> lib situation is resolved for rpm-4.1. Does strategy actually make
> sense?

Deferring apt-rpm?  Sure.  Waiting on libbz2/libpopt?  I dunno, what're 
you waiting for?  cygbz2-1.dll is part of the libbz2_1 package, while 
libbz2.dll.a is part of the bzip2 package.  And, of course, popt is 
already available in shared form -- but it's version 1.6.4.  I dunno if 
you're insisting on 1.7...

That leaves the libz question -- and Nicholas has promised me lots of 
documentation etc. so we'll see.

--Chuck