FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:00 PM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

$ repoquery --provides bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null
bind-dyndb-ldap = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17
bind-dyndb-ldap(x86-64) = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17
ldap.so()(64bit) <-------???

$ repoquery --list bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null
/usr/lib64/bind/ldap.so
...

I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I am
wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap (i.e. it has
provides for private shared unversioned library) or is it OK? The so
file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:03 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

On 08/22/2012 09:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:

$ repoquery --provides bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null
bind-dyndb-ldap = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17
bind-dyndb-ldap(x86-64) = 1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17
ldap.so()(64bit) <-------???

$ repoquery --list bind-dyndb-ldap.x86_64 2>/dev/null
/usr/lib64/bind/ldap.so
...

I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I am
wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap (i.e. it has
provides for private shared unversioned library) or is it OK? The so
file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.


IMO, it's ok.

-- rex

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:09 PM
"Jason L Tibbitts III"
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:

SO> I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I
SO> am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap
SO> (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is
SO> it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.

I would definitely filter it if building for a release new enough to
have the filtering setup that can handle archful packages (which at this
point is any Fedora release).

These still haven't made it into any guidelines, though. At least
there's now some documentation at
http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/DependencyGenerator

- J<
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:14 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

On 08/22/2012 09:09 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

"SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:


SO> I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I
SO> am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap
SO> (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is
SO> it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.

I would definitely filter it


Or get rpm to autoprov only on ldpath'd items...

-- rex
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:27 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

On 08/22/2012 04:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:

On 08/22/2012 09:09 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

"SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:


SO> I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I
SO> am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap
SO> (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is
SO> it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.

I would definitely filter it


So would I.

Such provides are supposed to be referring to *.sos in ldd's
search-path. Not filtering would just fillup the rpmdb with bogus
contents and are possible causes for rpm-dep conflicts.


IIRC, such conflicts once had hit some perl modules. For them, filtering
meanwhile is considered mandatory.



Or get rpm to autoprov only on ldpath'd items...

Does ldd pickup non-"lib" prefixed *.sos?


Ralf

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:38 PM
"Jason L Tibbitts III"
 
Default Provides for unversioned so files

>>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> writes:

RD> Or get rpm to autoprov only on ldpath'd items...

Now that's just crazy talk!

It's a little more complicated than that, for a couple of reasons:
ldpath can change (just drop a file into /etc/ld.so.conf.d), different
types of dependency generators certainly want to look outside of ldpath
(e.g. perl) and the rpm macros, while much nicer than what we used to
have (i.e. nothing), are purely exclusionary so we can't set distro
defaults to which packages could add if necessary.

- J<
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org