Hi there I recently switched mupdf to shared libraries. During test builds on COPR for EPEL I noticed a strange difference to fedora builds which I can reproduce with koji scratch builds as well (epel9 vs fc39). The difference is in the automatic provides for the -libs sub package: Provides: mupdf-libs = 1.23.10-2.el9 mupdf-libs(x86-64) = 1.23.10-2.el9 Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) mupdf-libs = 1.23.10-2.fc39 mupdf-libs(x86-64) = 1.23.10-2.fc39 And, of course, packages built against mupdf-devel automatically require ibmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) and fail to install on *EL. I even tested with `%ldconfig_scriptlets libs`, which makes no difference. Both packages have the same file contents including the lib, the SONAME is `libmupdf.so.23.10`. Is there any special magic on *EL which I need to do for the provides? Differences I noticed in build.log: epel9 uses `cc` and has lto-wrapper: warning: using serial compilation of 47 LTRANS jobs fc39 uses `gcc` and has extra flags -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -Wl,--build-id=sha1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-package-notes Cheers Michael https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113544172 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113544612 -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
