| Summary: | media-libs/glfw - SLOT 2.x and 3.x | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | OGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino> |
| Component: | [OLD] Library | Assignee: | Gentoo Games <games> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | alex_y_xu, gentoobugs, hendrik, mattst88 |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
OGINO Masanori
2014-01-14 22:46:14 UTC
*** Bug 522814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I don't see much evidence that the games team is going to do this. I'll look into it, since I just ran into this today. My question is if we need to have version 2 stick around at all. There are very few packages which use this library. In the long term, probably not. I came across it because I grabbed something from github, emerged glfw-3 and it failed to compile because it needed glfw-2. > I think GLFW version 2 and version 3 can be installed simultaneously because they have different file names. Unfortunately this is not the case; at least for the Gentoo ebuild and the created shared objects: While the sonames are different, there is a file collision for the unversioned shared object symlink. See my bugreport (in the duplicates) on the same issue, where I added my analysis of the naming issues and possible resolve. In the long term, the correct resolution would be for upstream to change the name of the shared object to libglfw3.so – the static library archive already is named libglfw3.a > Would you make media-libs/glfw:2 and media-libs/glfw:3 for simultaneous installation? I at least _do_ depend on both versions being available. For one you absolutely need both versions being installed for porting programs from GLFW-2 to GLFW-3; you can't test individual changes if you can't check against both versions. Sadly Crypt of the Necrodancer depends against libglfw.so.2, which as a non-open package will probably not be portet.
Would it be a possibility to providide a glfw:2 which just installs libglfw.so.2 and libglfw.so.${PV}, but not the symlink from libglfw.so?
I'm leaning more toward just punting glfw-2 completely. It's hard to justify keeping it when there's only one package in the tree that (barely) needs it. glfw-2 is no longer in the tree. |
