Mailing List Archive

I am putting some effort in the (RedHat) rpm package again. I got a
question about a devel package. Usually, on RedHat based systems, one
typically puts things like static libraries and header files in a devel
package, like "varnish-libs-devel-1.0.3-5.i386.rpm" for instance.

Now, I wonder: Would it be appropriate with a devel package at all? Is
it thinkable that anyone would use varnish technology to build things
outside varnish itself? If so, I could use a list of actual header files
and a suggestion on where to put them (/usr/include/varnish?), and maybe
some starting point hacking documentation, if that's feasible.

If this seems nonsense, please tell, and I'll just skip the devel
package.

Ingvar

--

In message <1177012587.13533.0.camel at re.e37>, Ingvar Hagelund writes:

>Now, I wonder: Would it be appropriate with a devel package at all? Is
>it thinkable that anyone would use varnish technology to build things
>outside varnish itself?

At this point, I don't think there is any risk of that. Down the
road it is anyones guess.

I would put a devel package on the "if needs arise" list


--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Ingvar Hagelund skreiv:
> I am putting some effort in the (RedHat) rpm package again. I got a
> question about a devel package. Usually, on RedHat based systems, one
> typically puts things like static libraries and header files in a devel
> package, like "varnish-libs-devel-1.0.3-5.i386.rpm" for instance.
>
> Now, I wonder: Would it be appropriate with a devel package at all? Is
> it thinkable that anyone would use varnish technology to build things
> outside varnish itself? If so, I could use a list of actual header files
> and a suggestion on where to put them (/usr/include/varnish?), and maybe
> some starting point hacking documentation, if that's feasible.

It doesn't hurt either, so I think it should stay there. I had a look at
the package, and see that you strip the binaries. Stripping is handled
by rpm itself, and the debuginfo is automatically put into it's own package.

--
Roy-Magne Mo

Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar at linpro.no> writes:
> Now, I wonder: Would it be appropriate with a devel package at all? Is
> it thinkable that anyone would use varnish technology to build things
> outside varnish itself?

Actually, there is an API for reading log data either from shared
memory or from a file written by varnishlog, which might be useful if
only it were documented...

DES
--
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

Ingvar Hagelund wrote :

> Repost, just to make sure it comes through after the greylisting problem.
>
> I am putting some effort in the (RedHat) rpm package again. I got a
> question about a devel package. Usually, on RedHat based systems, one
> typically puts things like static libraries and header files in a devel
> package, like "varnish-libs-devel-1.0.3-5.i386.rpm" for instance.
>
> Now, I wonder: Would it be appropriate with a devel package at all? Is
> it thinkable that anyone would use varnish technology to build things
> outside varnish itself? If so, I could use a list of actual header files
> and a suggestion on where to put them (/usr/include/varnish?), and maybe
> some starting point hacking documentation, if that's feasible.
>
> If this seems nonsense, please tell, and I'll just skip the devel
> package.

From what Dag-Erling answered, it seems like the devel package might
make sense. If you do decide to have one, your example above isn't good
(at least for Red Hat and Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva and others do things
differently), as you would need to have for instance :

varnish (the main package with the daemon)
varnish-libs
varnish-devel (and not "varnish-libs-devel")

The "libs" only make sense to split out if some programs could require
them without requiring the main daemon. Again, from what Dag-Erling
wrote, maybe this would make sense if someone writes a varnishlog file
parser.

Attached are the files I used to build the latest varnish package I
used, in case they can be of any help.

Matthias

--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.20-1.2943.fc6
Load : 0.30 0.29 0.27
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: varnish.conf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 799 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://projects.linpro.no/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20070420/09703d8c/attachment.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: varnish.init
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1788 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://projects.linpro.no/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20070420/09703d8c/attachment-0001.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: varnish.spec
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3966 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://projects.linpro.no/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20070420/09703d8c/attachment-0002.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vcl.conf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 678 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://projects.linpro.no/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20070420/09703d8c/attachment-0003.obj

In message <20070420100800.51641b68 at python3.es.egwn.lan>, Matthias Saou writes:

>The "libs" only make sense to split out if some programs could require
>them without requiring the main daemon. Again, from what Dag-Erling
>wrote, maybe this would make sense if someone writes a varnishlog file
>parser.

It may make sense down the road, but not yet.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

* Matthias Saou
> From what Dag-Erling answered, it seems like the devel package might
> make sense.

Since the documentation mentioned is missing, I'm going to push the
devel package for later/request, as proposed by Poul-Henning.

> If you do decide to have one, your example above isn't good
> (at least for Red Hat and Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva and others do things
> differently), as you would need to have for instance :
>
> varnish (the main package with the daemon)
> varnish-libs
> varnish-devel (and not "varnish-libs-devel")

It's kind of strange, as I get different answers every time I ask
anybody about this :-)

At the moment, I have a package for review for Fedora. Matthias, could
you post comments in RedHat Bugzilla, Bug #230275, please?

> The "libs" only make sense to split out if some programs could require
> them without requiring the main daemon. Again, from what Dag-Erling
> wrote, maybe this would make sense if someone writes a varnishlog file
> parser.

I guess I will to keep the libs package for future use. It's complete,
and thus easier to cope with than a non-existing list of header files
and documentation.

> Attached are the files I used to build the latest varnish package I
> used, in case they can be of any help.

Yes, the changes to the initscript and the configuration file are
absolutely interesting, though I might insist on putting the config file
in /etc/sysconfig.

Ingvar
--