Add conf-taglib_c #28001
Add conf-taglib_c #28001
Conversation
|
According to what is written there, you can |
| depends: [ | ||
| "conf-pkg-config" {build} | ||
| ] | ||
| depexts: [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why there are less depexts than above?
I think libtag-c-dev should be there for ubumtu for example: https://packages.ubuntu.com/plucky/libtag-c-dev
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it not an issue that the package libtag-c-dev only seems to exist in the latest version of ubuntu (25.04) ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that the latest version of ubuntu had this version.
I removed fedora since the taglib package https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/taglib/taglib-devel/ doesn't provide the required version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or should I still put the package ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fact that is only in a recent version is not a problem, there is a way to filter the package name by os version in those cases: https://opam.ocaml.org/doc/Manual.html#opamvar-os-version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So for packages not yet up to date into distribution repos, should I filter using the opam variable os-version ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there is a choice of name to be made, I'd say yes
Run
pkg-configto check if this library is installed on the system.conf-taglib_c.1checks if a minimal version of 1.0.0conf-taglib_c.2checks if a minimal version of 2.0.0But I have some questions.
How should we handle
depextsfor distributions providing the package but not with a required version (.eg fedora providestaglib-develbut currently only at the version1.13.1), should we list them in thedepextsfield or not ?Also
taglibis double-licensed under theLGPL-2.1andMPL-1.1but according to mozilla, theMPL-1.1can be upgraded toMPL-2.0. So in the license field, can I putMPL-2.0instead ofMPL-1.1or should we stick to theMPL-1.1or the links from mozilla is irrelevant ?Thanks for your time.