[Bug 1080583] Review Request: compat-qpid-cpp - Compatibility modules for Qpid

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080583



--- Comment #18 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> ---
---> obsoletes fixed.

* $ rpmls compat-qpid-cpp-client-0.24-7.fc21.x86_64.rpm

[ ... ]
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib64/libqpidtypes.so.1.0.0
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib64/qpid
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib64/qpid/client
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/doc/compat-qpid-cpp-client
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/compat-qpid-cpp-client/DESIGN
[ ... ]

---> So, qpid directories ownerships are fine.

---> -ha issue seems reasonable to me.

* compat-qpid-cpp-server-store.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/store.so store.so.0.24

---> store.so.0.24 is part of server which is a dependency. So, this is fine.

====================================================

Could you please clarify the following - 

* compat-qpid-cpp-server-ha.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qpidd-primary

No lock file?

* Lastly, there is this unversioned -so files not in a devel package.

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
compat-qpid-cpp-server: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/ha.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/legacystore.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/store.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/xml.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server-ha: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/ha.so
compat-qpid-cpp-client-rdma: /usr/lib64/librdmawrap.so
compat-qpid-cpp-client-rdma: /usr/lib64/qpid/client/rdmaconnector.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server-rdma: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/rdma.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server-xml: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/xml.so
compat-qpid-cpp-server-store: /usr/lib64/qpid/daemon/store.so


>From the guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages),
"When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the
packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library
file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users
to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package."

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]