On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 17:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Broken dependencies are one thing, broken "Provides" another.
>
> The distribution includes an increasing number of packages, which don't
> filter their SONAME Provides when they include shared libraries in private
> paths.
>
> This can have devastating effects in conjunction with yum's "shortest
> package name wins" during depsolving. For example:
>
> libfoo provides libfoo.so.1 for %{_libdir}/libfoo.so.1
> bar provides libfoo.so.1 for %{_libdir}/bar/plugins/libfoo.so.1.0.0
>
> Only for libfoo the automatic "Provides: libfoo.so.1" is sane. And even if
> "bar" extended the ld.so configuration, it would conflict with libfoo in
> what it provides.
>
> I've reported a few such cases. All the others look like packages provide
> sonames for plugin libraries without actually conflicting with any library
> package in the Fedora Collection. Still it's dangerous if multiple packages
> provide "libfoo.so" (versioned or not), but neither one puts the library
> into run-time linker's search path. Sooner or later such dependencies
> might explode at run-time.
>
> Reviewers ought to examine "Provides" carefully and require packagers to
> filter the Provides if necessary.
How should I filter these, short of AutoReqProv: 0 ?
- ajax
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
