Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Provide -devel, -doc and -runtime virtual packages in RPM #563

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 25, 2020
Merged

Provide -devel, -doc and -runtime virtual packages in RPM #563

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 25, 2020

Conversation

cottsay
Copy link
Member

@cottsay cottsay commented Jan 14, 2020

There is nothing that will currently take advantage of these virtual packages, but providing them now would allow us to implement a mechanism to take advantage of them in the future without re-blooming everything.

The virtual packages which an RPM package provides are not generally exposed in any package lists, so this shouldn't cause any confusion to end users. If merged, you could view this as a "present but disabled" feature.

The motivations for making this change right now, despite being incomplete, are:

  • It could save us from requiring re-blooming later on
  • It could be used to test a more complete solution at-scale
  • It does not change the existing behavior of the packages at all
  • Since the functionality described by these virtual packages are, in practice, provided by the monolithic package we're currently creating, these virtual packages are not incorrect. This pattern is often used and sometimes even required in Fedora packaging, such as providing -static on a package which contains both headers and static (*.a) libraries.

There is nothing that will currently take advantage of these virtual
packages, but providing them now would allow us to implement a mechanism
to take advantage of them in the future without re-blooming everything.

The virtual packages which an RPM package provides are not generally
exposed in any package lists, so this shouldn't cause any confusion.

Since the current behavior is to include all of a ROS package's files
(including runtime, development and documentation) in a single package,
these virtual packages are not incorrect.
@cottsay cottsay self-assigned this Jan 14, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@wjwwood wjwwood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems reasonable to me, since it opens some options for the future without changing current behavior.

I can't really properly review the substance of the changes as I don't know all of the details, but trust you to get them right, and the syntax of the changes look good to me.

@wjwwood wjwwood merged commit d111299 into ros-infrastructure:master Feb 25, 2020
@cottsay cottsay deleted the rpm_subpackages branch February 26, 2020 03:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants