Packaging: A need for a devel package?

Ingvar Hagelund ingvar at
Fri Apr 20 15:12:17 CEST 2007

* Matthias Saou
> From what Dag-Erling answered, it seems like the devel package might
> make sense.

Since the documentation mentioned is missing, I'm going to push the
devel package for later/request, as proposed by Poul-Henning.

> If you do decide to have one, your example above isn't good
> (at least for Red Hat and Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva and others do things
> differently), as you would need to have for instance :
> varnish (the main package with the daemon)
> varnish-libs
> varnish-devel (and not "varnish-libs-devel")

It's kind of strange, as I get different answers every time I ask
anybody about this :-)

At the moment, I have a package for review for Fedora. Matthias, could
you post comments in RedHat Bugzilla, Bug #230275, please?

> The "libs" only make sense to split out if some programs could require
> them without requiring the main daemon. Again, from what Dag-Erling
> wrote, maybe this would make sense if someone writes a varnishlog file
> parser.

I guess I will to keep the libs package for future use. It's complete,
and thus easier to cope with than a non-existing list of header files
and documentation.

> Attached are the files I used to build the latest varnish package I
> used, in case they can be of any help.

Yes, the changes to the initscript and the configuration file are
absolutely interesting, though I might insist on putting the config file
in /etc/sysconfig.


More information about the varnish-misc mailing list