Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mozldap Alias: mozldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-17 14:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > > 10) standard practice in Fedora is to symlink back to the actual .so rather > > than create a trail of symlinks > > I'm not sure what this means? In this bit of the spec... for file in libssldap50.so libprldap50.so libldap50.so do mv $file $file.%{major}.%{minor} ln -s $file.%{major}.%{minor} $file.%{major} ln -s $file.%{major} $file done ...$file is a symlink to $file.major, which is a symlink to $file.major.minor. $file should just symlink up to $file.major.minor instead. > > 14) unversioned .so files must go in -devel package when there are > > also versioned .so's > > But then if someone links an app against libldap50.so (in the devel package), > how does the app find libldap50.so at runtime when it doesn't exist on the > system, only libldap50.so.5.17? I can't say I know the specifics of it, but I know it works. :) Its explicitly called out that way in the packaging guidelines, and does work for umpteen libraries already in Fedora Core and Extras. > > 15) rpmlint complains about invalid sonames, I presume this is a side-effect > > of renaming them: > > > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 libssldap50.so > > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap-5.0.so.5.17 libprldap50.so > > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap-5.0.so.5.17 libldap50.so > > Where do /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 and the others come from? All of my > lib names should begin with lib[ss,pr]ldap50 Bah, that was from me playing around a bit to see if it was just the file name it didn't like. The actual output to be concerned about is: E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap50.so.5.17 libssldap50.so E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap50.so.5.17 libprldap50.so E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap50.so.5.17 libldap50.so I believe the versioning should be encoded somewhere in the shared lib, but at build time, unversioned libs are being created. A 'strings /usr/lib(64)/lib<whatever>' for any library with a versioning includes lib<whatever.so.<version> in the output, while lib*ldap50.so.* only includes lib*ldap50.so. That being the case, it looks like either something needs to be done at build time to put the right versioning info in there, or only the unversioned lib should be packaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review