https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820544 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- > And that's correct, as if I install a 64 bits package I expect > to pull in 64 bit dependencies. Please read from comment #4 of this bug. No, not again. :-/ It's disappointing you've not even thought twice before disagreeing with me. A src.rpm package is arch-independent (!), which means it is built on an arbitrary build server using an arbitrary arch, and the single src.rpm is published in a _single_ package repository. You can easily see the result of your packaging mistake if you downloaded the src.rpm of your own libguac-client-vnc package, for example: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/17/SRPMS/libguac-client-vnc-0.6.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Note that's _the_ single SRPMS repo for all archs! $ rpm -qpR libguac-client-vnc-0.6.0-4.fc17.src.rpm cairo-devel(x86-64) gnutls-devel(x86-64) libguac-devel(x86-64) = 0.6.0 libvncserver-devel(x86-64) rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 Ooops! This is completely wrong for i686. Package resolvers will fail trying to download x86_64 packages which are not available for i686. One would first need to rebuild the src.rpm, which is highly recommended anyway, because there might be conditional (arch-dependent!) BuildRequires in the spec file, which only become active build requirements if the src.rpm is built on the correct target arch. > > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > > Yes, this is probably a leftover, I will remove it. No, they are needed. How else would dlopen find the libs? Could it be that you just got lost due to lack of comments in your package? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820543#c8 That comment is misguided, unfortunately. There is a major difference between "hiding shared libs in a subdir of %_libdir" (and effectively hiding it from the run-time linker) and "moving shared libs into a subdir of %_libdir plus adding that subdir to the run-time linker's search path". Do you realize what the limited gain is when you do that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review