On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:07 AM Leon Fauster via epel-devel <epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 06.02.24 um 16:57 schrieb Leon Fauster:
> Hi troy,
>
> after deinstalling gpgme1.22 I get a broken linkage.
> This link should not happen in the first place, right?
>
>
> # ls -la /usr/lib64/libgpgme*
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 20 6. Feb 14:35 /usr/lib64/libgpgmepp.so.6
> -> libgpgmepp.so.6.19.0
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 19 6. Feb 14:35 /usr/lib64/libgpgme.so.11
> -> libgpgme.so.11.31.0
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 350864 13. Mai 2022 /usr/lib64/libgpgme.so.11.24.1
>
> # rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libgpgme.so.11
> gpgme-1.15.1-6.el9.x86_64
>
>
Ugg ... you are correct.
Looks like the library linker needs to be re-run on post install.
It seems that libreoffice-core needs "libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)" and dnf
chooses gpgme1.22 from epel instead gpgme from appstream.
# LANG=C dnf whatprovides "libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)"
Last metadata expiration check: 4:43:48 ago on Tue Feb 6 12:21:37 2024.
gpgme1.22pp-1.22.0-1.el9.x86_64 : C++ bindings/wrapper for GPGME
Repo : epel
Matched from:
Provide : libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)
gpgmepp-1.15.1-6.el9.x86_64 : C++ bindings/wrapper for GPGME
Repo : appstream
Matched from:
Provide : libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)
I really thought I'd gotten the provides right for that package.
That's not as straight forward as the linker not being run.
I wouldn't mind a hand poking at this so we can get it right.
Troy
-- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
