https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388768 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you! Oops, sorry missed your comments last month... (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) > But I think it's better to be even more explicit: > MESON_OPTS=( ... > -Ddoc-gen=%[%{with docs}?"enabled":"disabled"] > ) > We then don't depend on the upstream default, and the value is recorded in > the build log. I like this, thanks > I'd also suggest adding: > --libexecdir=%{_libexecdir} Sure > > - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > That seems to be a mismatch with how nix does things (separate sublayouts > for each package) and what everybody else does. They don't need to do > library versioning because they want to recompile everything all the time > anyway. I'm not sure what the best choice here is. I wonder if we should just go with static libs like Debian here? Otherwise the shared libraries should probably be separated out anyway, though I don't know what needs them and probably it could wait until such a need arises (making it configurable feels slightly overdo though I suppose it is probably doable). > Another big question is the use of /nix for the store. IIUC, theoretically > this path could be changed, but it is baked into the compiled nix packages, > so changing the path would invalidate the whole cache of shared packages, > making such an installation of nix not really usable. So I think we want to > keep this path. The packaging guidelines say > > Fedora does not allow new directories directly under / or /usr without FPC approval. > > Right now this package sidesteps the issue by not setting up the store and > referring the user to the copr (or to manual setup). I think this is fine > for now, but long-term I think we'd want to not require that. I think the > nicest solution would be to ask FPC to add an exception saying that "/nix" > may optionally be used for the purpose of installing nixos packages. Yes I agree that would be good - so far FPC has resisted though, but maybe if the package is available the discussion becomes more practical than hypothetical. Help and support for this would be welcome. :-) > I think Provides:nix should be added to one of the packages. Users are > likely to use 'sudo dnf install nix', and this should work. Actually maybe we should just bite the bullet and rename nix-core to nix. (In my original nix copr, the nix package corresponds to what I am calling nix-multiuser now in nix-setup copr.) > Should 'readline' be used instead of 'editline'? Yeah I suppose so - it seems supported by upstream now: I had gone to the trouble earlier of packaging editline just for this ;-( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388768 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202388768%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
