Status of integration in distributions #358
Comments
|
@tehnick: Thanks for your links |
|
The library should probably be added as |
|
Can you elaborate what do you mean by that? Is this project being renamed to minizip2? |
|
It is not being renamed. Just like other libraries, that have multiple versions, this one does too. (See #333 (comment)). Distributions should increment the version number when integrating - maybe something like |
|
Ok, then in Fedora is probably better option to go with the latest supported version in The only issue is that the new version is not compatible with previous one; among Fedora packages only |
Hmm, how about
It is interesting. I thought that in Fedora the usage of embedded copy of such common libraries is not allowed like in Debian. |
|
@tehnick it's not impossible to add
Bundling is discouraged practice nowadays in Fedora (not entirely banned), but yes - minizip shouldn't be bundled. It is sort of misunderstanding/bug which will be fixed I believe. Despite the fact that minizip is not really "common library" -- original upstream abandoned it, new upstream is painfully incompatible, and people are used to bundle the old version with various different patches if anything. |
Do you mean exactly including copy of library in program sources? Because problem is not in bundling of library into sources but in using of this embedded copy instead of system library. And this is a different case... |
|
I didn't have to think about "bundling" word definition till now :-), but I can confirm you understand the "problem of bundling" the same way as I do; for "how Fedora understands bundling" see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle |
|
Why am I mentioned for Mageia when I don't even know what it is? |
|
Linked to https://github.com/stachenov/quazip (look the link) |
|
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I added minizip2 to MacPorts: https://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=minizip& |
|
Added to Homebrew: Homebrew/homebrew-core@dd07f5a $ brew install minizip2 |
|
Any news 1 year and 9 months after my ticket? |
|
I am not actively keeping up with the latest news or push for inclusion/updates in any distributions. |
|
One guy can see for Debian 11, the freeze is 2021-01-12? No reply from Michael Gilbert since my first request. Next Debian will be here in 2023. Note: There is 2.10.6 now: |
|
minizip has been removed here, please look history: But you can see others: |
|
@nmoinvaz: Maybe time to rename this repo, minizip2 no? |
|
There have been requests in the past to do that #333, but the name of the repository is arbitrary in my opinion. When minizip goes to version 3 should I then rename the repository to minizip3? It is up to package maintainers to determine how they want to incorporate it into a particular package management system. I have already written the source code and provided build system and continuous integration with my own time. I have no interest in really maintaining packages in the various package management systems. I am fine with it being submitted to any package management system so long as it doesn't require changes to the repository. I have even provided a |
|
@nmoinvaz: Or minizip-ng :) |
|
We are thinking alike, I have sent @Dead2 an e-mail asking him about it. |
|
Have you tried to contact Michael Gilbert? Have you tried to publish directly on Debian? @tehnick can help, I think. If not, who can help? What is the solution? We will be blocked 2 years again? PS: You can publish too zlib-ng at the same time. |
|
I don't think I have had contact with any of the package maintainers. I could be wrong. If you would like to maintain the package on Debian and need something from me to enable you to do it, let me know. I don't want to maintain the packages myself. |
|
@Neustradamus I do not have time for one more Debian package. Especially for such low-level library which is widely used by different software. (It requires more time for proper maintaining.) |
|
The repository has now been renamed to zlib-ng/minizip-ng. A future release will have the name changes in the README and source code files. |
|
Hi, I've decided to look at this issue in Fedora. Several questions before (pardon me if they sound stupid, I just need to be sure):
Thank you for answering the questions. |
Yes it should be if using the MZ_COMPAT option which enables compatibility layer. If there is an compatiblity with minizip from zlib then it is likely a bug. |
minizip-ng can use zlib or zlib-ng. You should be able to control it via some of the CMake options, and if there is something missing in the way of configurablity it is possible for a PR. |
|
Thank you for the replies. I've created a Fedora change for this process because it will require multiple changes across the packages. This change will take quite a long time due to the plan (mentioned in the Fedora change) that has to be followed. Fedora minizip change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipRenaming |
|
Yes @Neustradamus, I've successfully managed to finish the renaming change. However, due to community concerns about compatibility, I had to trim the "minizip-compat to minizip" renaming. Either way, in Fedora Rawhide there are only 'minizip-ng' and 'minizip-compat' packages. |
|
@ljavorsk: Nice but impossible to have the original minizip too? |
|
fwiw I'm not really able to move forward with minizip-ng right now: #654. |
|
@Neustradamus not possible until we fully move on from the current minizip (after Fedora 42). We can try to create another change for the renaming after that. |
Sorted with #657. The next thing is figuring out what packages like Dolphin want (https://bugs.gentoo.org/873952) where it seems like we need to install in compatibility mode but with a suffix (e.g. -ng), which seems confusing. I'd have thought anything happy with minizip-ng wouldn't then want compatibility mode. |
I took a look at this and I don't see how this is the case right now - even if the interfaces are the same (not compared them), the SONAME is different. zlib's minizip is 1 and minizip-ng's (even with MZ_COMPAT) is 4? |
|
Feel free to submit any PRs. |
|
I'm happy to, but I need to understand what the intention is first and if it's changed since that comment. There's nothing about ABI in README, so I don't know. I'm guessing it hasn't (so this sounds like a bug) based on your reply? |
|
Correct. The goal is still to provide compatibility. |
👋🏻 what's the request/ask here? |
|
@MikeMcQuaid: I have updated the description, it is okay for Homebrew ^^ |
|
@Neustradamus try using these two for package manager distribution refs (good visualization): |
|
@Neustradamus re-read it, sorry, still not sure what you're asking for? |
|
I switched the OpenBSD port / package to 4.x 6 months ago. |
|
@brad0: Why have you not seen to have "minizip" and added "minizip-ng"? |
|
I almost forgot about this issue... Status update from Red Hat (Fedora): |
No point having both.
zlib is in base. No point. |
|
Zlib-ng has now fully replaced madler/zlib in Fedora Rawhide. Feel free to test it and provide us with feedback. |
|
@ljavorsk: Good job! |
|
Just to make it clear, it wasn't just my good job but other engineers as well (e.g. @tuliom with his huge amount of work and help in zlib-ng) All of them are listed in the Fedora Change mentioned in #358 (comment) |
archivers/minizip-ng: update to 4.0.5: |
|
archivers/minizip-ng: update to 4.0.6: |
|
archivers/minizip-ng: update to 4.0.7: |
Need an adding:
MacPorts : zlib-ng is missing: @ryandesign @MarcusCalhoun-Lopez, @cjones051073
Others?
minizip-ng (2023-07-28):
Others?
zlib-ng (2023-07-28):
Others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: