On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:12:01PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote:
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:43PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote:
me at swva wrote:
I think I'm being unclear, in two ways.
Just to check, I did this as root :
[root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 Setting up Update Process No Packages marked for Update ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [root@Hbsk2 btth]# On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to upgrade to dillo-2.0. But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the 0.8.6 is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any idea why it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, let alone 2.0
That's life. In Fedora, nor even Rawhide, isn't Dillo v2.0. Two reasons:
1) No one packed FLTK 2.x, check repository there's still 1.1.9. 2) Because of (1) no Dillo 2.
Although Fedora is usually fresh, in case of Dillo it's still on Dillo 0.8.6 mainline. Feel free to file bug (bugzilla.redhat.com) against Dillo and Package Review for FLTK2, but be aware that having unstable FLTK 2.x in Fedora might be quite fight. (Believe me I am Fedora packager.)
Dillo2 doesn't need an FLTK2 package installed! It can be statically linked in. One package, that's it. (this is the default BTW).
Sure I am aware of that, but wrt Fedora, it's something neat forbidden
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
unless necessary (and this is not the case).
Now, if distros need to also provide source packages by policy, then that's a different story.
Correct. FLTK can't just be present in compile time, somehow, toolchain has to be clear and for everyone from day0.
Please clarify me because I've read that complaint a few times, and don't yet know whether it's my fault not making the statical linking clear enough to packagers, or if there's a packaging policy issue I don't know of. :)
From my POV, in distros we don't want static built packages; security flaws in linked-in libraries is the main concern. One has to rebuild all apps with those libraries, not just the library (obvious).
I don't thing it will be that hard to get FLTK & Dillo2 into Fedora, the thing is that no one did it till now :). (And I ma pretty busy at work & uni :) ).
Thanks a lot for the explanation! Although it may be difficult to get a FLTK2 package in the distro because FLTK2 doesn't have a stable release yet. I mean, if policies mandate not to include alpha or beta libraries, we're out... It'd be good to know this (for Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian at least). That way we can ask the FLTK team about their schedule plans. -- Cheers Jorge.-