Back story: talking to che in #fedora-devel, and he came across the fact that libgnomebt.so symlink was not included and thus he was unable to build and link to libgnomebt. Che did a little digging and discovered a small error in the spec that left the symlink unpackaged. Appearently, to my great horror, rpm doesn't notice when symlinks go unpackaged and doesn't warn about it when building a package. Made me wonder if there were other missing .so symlinks. The idea: So that got me to thinking, is there a not so clever way for me to get a summary of potentially missing .so symlinks for a fully installed fc3 system so we can get these reported in one big push. So i did myself a full install, ran ldconfig and captured the output of ldconfig -p. I then parsed the output of ldconfig -p using a drop dead stupid shell script to get a list of candidate missing .so symlinks file locations based on the existance of .so.* in the same directory and compared that list to rpmdb-fedora to doublecheck those specific file locations were not in an available core package. The result: I have a list of 49 POTENTIALLY missing .so files from the fc3 package set. I stress potential because i know this was a very un-clever way to approach this, and I'm sure there are several special case situations that I'm misflagging with my script. For example, anything like libick-X.Y.so.Z will flags libick-X.Y.so as missing even if libick.so is there even though its not really a problem in most circumstances. But my goal was just to get the list down to something small enough to be human reviewable in a reasonable amount of time. Che has already gone over the list once, it was originally 78 or so potentially missing files. I'm sure there are false alarms in the list, but there are also some files that apear to both che and myself to be missing and filable as packaging bugs. There might be situations where the .so was delibrately left out that we are not aware of so I don't want to jump the gun and file bug reports without more review. For example libgnomebt.so and libgnome-window-settings.so jump out to me as real package errors if they were not delibrately left out. So please take a look at the list of potentially missing .so files below and comment on specific files that you think are definitely missing because of a packaging problem that impacts the ability to build and link the dynamic library. This was from a complete fc3 install, I haven't had a chance to do this with a full rawhide install yet. -jef ld-linux.so libamu.so libblkid.so libboost_date_time.so libboost_filesystem.so libboost_prg_exec_monitor.so libboost_python.so libboost_regex.so libboost_signals.so libboost_test_exec_monitor.so libboost_thread.so libboost_unit_test_framework.so libc.so libdw.so libFS.so libg2c.so libgcc_s.so libgcj.so libgfortranpreview.so libGLw.so libgmodule-1.2.so libgnarl-3.4.so libgnat-3.4.so libgnomebt.so libgnome-window-settings.so lib-gnu-java-awt-peer-gtk.so libgthread-1.2.so libhpojip.so liblber-2.2.so liblber.so libldap-2.2.so libldap_r-2.2.so libldap_r.so libmDNSResponder-0.9.6.so libNoVersion.so libnss_db.so libnuma.so libobjc.so lib-org-w3c-dom.so lib-org-xml-sax.so libparted-1.6.so libptal.so libpthread.so libpwdb.so libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so libstdc++.so libsvn_swig_perl-1.so libsvn_swig_py-1.so
