On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:07:21 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > I maintain two package, OpenImageIO and OpenColorIO, which can optionally > > depend on each other. During the review process I intentionally decided > > that it was more important for OpenImageIO to depend on OpenColorIO as it > > uses the latter for color management. > > > > OpenColorIO is not a library, but a binary requirement. It can optionally > > build two binaries that use OpenImageIO. Until now this has not been a > > problem but now I have gotten a request to build the binaries. > Ok, I slightly misspoke here, OpenColorIO is a library, but the only dependency on OpenImageIO is from the utility binaries... > > > > This almost seems to be bootstrapping but I'm not quite sure I need to go > > that far... > > > > Since both are established packages, if one is updated, wouldn't the only > > consequence be that once I build the updated package, I would need to > also > > rebuild the other package (after adding the former as a buildroot > override). > > > > Am I missing something, or is it that easy? > > It may be even easier. You only need a buildroot override, if the > build of OpenImageIO that's available in the buildroot (since it has > been published before) is not API-compatible with what OpenColorIO wants. > For future updates/upgrades of OpenImageIO, rebuilds of OpenColorIO would > only be needed for ABI/API changes in OpenImageIO. Thanks! I was hoping it was that easy. Upstream is pretty good about not breaking API/ABI but I usually check with abi-compliance-checker anyway since OpenImageIO is needed by blender and I'm not the primary maintainer for it. Thanks, Richard
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
