Sam Varshavchik wrote, at 08/19/2007 10:06 PM +9:00: > Michael Schwendt writes: > >> On 19/08/07, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>> >>> > ./libmylib.so.1 ln -s /usr/lib/libmylib.so.1 libmylib.so The >>> > requirement is /usr/lib directory will have : libmylib.so.x >>> > libmylib.so -> libmylib.so.x >>> >>> Throw out your ln command altogether. Just place the .so in /usr/lib >>> and run /sbin/ldconfig in %post. It will make the symlinks according to >>> the library soname. >> >> That is false advise, however, since you want to create all necessary >> symlinks in the %install section in order to include them in the >> %files section and the package. If you don't include the symlinks in >> the package, but let ldconfig create them, the files don't belong to >> any package, which is a packaging bug. > > Really? > > Maybe you should then file this bug against a few hundred or so Fedora > packages, that have been doing this for years. > > $ rpm -q -a --scripts | grep 'install program' | grep ldconfig | wc -l > 571 > > Nope, this is not a packaging bug. This is the correct way to package > libraries. Creating symlink beforehand and calling ldconfig on %post and %postun scriptlets are *BOTH* needed, as Michael already points out. Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
