[Devel] Thoughts on lv2-universe-YYYYMMDD.tar.bz2

Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 11:18:58 PST 2012

On 02/11/2012 08:15 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 07:53 PM, David Robillard wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 14:18 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I've been thinking about what this means to packaging the LV2 spec in
>>> general. After some thought I believe Fedora would end up packaging each
>>> separately in any case, unless all of the spec extensions were versioned
>>> the same as lv2core, but that would not happen right?
>> Right, the actual versions have strong meanings and would remain the
>> same.
>> Why would Fedora still package them individually? (Debian actually does
>> it all in one despite them being released individually)
>> Would releasing in one tarball make this difficult? Would each
>> sub-project having its own build system still be necessary, or would a
>> single top-level one do?
> Well we have some stuff which will only build against lv2core > 4 for
> example (misplaced header references mainly). I guess if we package the
> core separately we could do this. But moving forward we still need some
> way of tracking the version dependencies. Unfortunately there is no
> facility to attribute different version-release-* tuples within a single
> RPM in the Fedora build system.
> We could version the rest of the spec according to the svn revision /
> date and prepend the lv2core version e.g. 6.x.svn201202011. The version
> of the spec package/sub-packages would then only get bumped when the
> core does. Can you see anything wrong with this approach?
Footnote: obviously this approach would require the package maintainer 
(i.e. me) to patch and/or notify upstream when any spec changes cause 
build failures.

More information about the Devel mailing list