Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Alec Leamas wrote:
Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores
private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is
'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors.
There's no requirement that our packages have no errors from rpmlint.
Agreed.

  As far
as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging
guidelines.
To my understanding, this is not really clear. From [1] I find ( thanks to tibbs):

As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are not located in the ld library paths or cache. This means that they are not located directly in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, or in a directory listed as a library path in /etc/ld.so.conf (or an /etc/ld.so.conf.d/config file). Usually, these unversioned shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used for libpurple applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do not need to be placed in a -devel package.
I read those lines as "unversioned libs should be outside of ld.so's paths" - placing them in a -devel package makes no sense. Also, my initial discussion on #fedora-devel pointed in the same direction.

However, I have no problem with your overall conclusion from a more practical point of view. I just want it cleared out.


  Unversioned shared libraries are bad, but inventing a library
version can lead to conflicts with future upstream releases for public
libraries, and is just not worth it at all for private ones. There's no need
for a soname version if the library comes from the same package as the only
user(s) of it.

         Kevin Kofler
Looks fine to me. Anyone else? Should the private lib be filtered in this situation?
Thanks for input.!

--alec

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux