https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168914 --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Adrien Devresse from comment #2) > Blocking issues : > - Clarification needed about transition xrootd 3 - > xrootd 4 and devel package > - Fix rpmlint problems There are no file conflicts between xrootd-compat and xrootd >= 1:4.1.0. For earler versions there were conflicts due to the plugins, but starting with version 4.1.0 the plugins have versioned names like libXrdSec-4.so. E.g.: $ rpm -q -l xrootd-libs /usr/lib64/libXrdAppUtils.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdAppUtils.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCksCalczcrc32-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdCrypto.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCrypto.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptoLite.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptoLite.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptossl-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSec-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsi-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiAUTHZVO-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPDN-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPLDAP-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSeckrb5-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecpwd-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecsss-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecunix-4.so /usr/lib64/libXrdUtils.so.2 /usr/lib64/libXrdUtils.so.2.0.0 /usr/share/doc/xrootd-libs /usr/share/doc/xrootd-libs/COPYING /usr/share/doc/xrootd-libs/COPYING.BSD /usr/share/doc/xrootd-libs/COPYING.LGPL /usr/share/doc/xrootd-libs/LICENSE $ rpm -qlp xrootd-compat-libs-3.3.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/libXrdAppUtils.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdAppUtils.so.0.0.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCksCalczcrc32.so /usr/lib64/libXrdCksCalczcrc32.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCksCalczcrc32.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCrypto.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCrypto.so.0.0.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptoLite.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptoLite.so.0.0.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptossl.so /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptossl.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdCryptossl.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdMain.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdMain.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSec.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSec.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSec.so.0.0.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsi.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsi.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsi.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiAuthzVO.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiAuthzVO.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiAuthzVO.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPDN.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPDN.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPDN.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPLDAP.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPLDAP.so.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecgsiGMAPLDAP.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSeckrb5.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSeckrb5.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdSeckrb5.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecpwd.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecpwd.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecpwd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecsss.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecsss.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecsss.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecunix.so /usr/lib64/libXrdSecunix.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdSecunix.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXrdUtils.so.1 /usr/lib64/libXrdUtils.so.1.0.2 /usr/share/doc/xrootd-compat-libs /usr/share/doc/xrootd-compat-libs/COPYING /usr/share/doc/xrootd-compat-libs/COPYING.BSD /usr/share/doc/xrootd-compat-libs/COPYING.LGPL /usr/share/doc/xrootd-compat-libs/LICENSE This issue was the reason why it was not possible to create a compat package before xrootd 4.1.0 was released and is the reason for why the conflicts in the xrootd-compat package says < 1:4.1.0. The unversioned .so files in the xrootd-compat are all plugins and do not conflict with xrootd >= 1:4.1.0 since there the plugins have versioned names. The xrootd-compat does not provide any -devel packages, so there are no conflicts with the unversioned .so files in xrootd's -devel packages. rpmlint: - E: files-attr-not-set It seems you have been running rpmlint on RHEL - which is fine. But the rpmlint on RHEL is of course older than the latest version, and therefore runs checks against older versions of the guidelines. This complaint is about not having a %defattr in the %files sections. The current guidelines say: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions "In the past (pre rpm 4.4), it was necessary to have a %defattr section at the beginning of each %files section, but this is now the default and no longer necessary to explicitly include." $ rpm -q rpm rpm-4.4.2.3-34.el5 I.e. the rpm version on RHEL 5 is new enough to handle the file attributes correctly by default without %defattr. Therefore there is no need to use the old packaging guidlines in this case. (You still need to use some old guidelines to be compatible with RHEL 5 like having a BuildRoot tag, and cleaning the buildroot in the %install section and having a %clean section - these are all there in the xrootd-compat specfile.) - W: obsolete-not-provided xrootd This is intentional to make the upgrade behave properly. - W: shared-lib-calls-exit I can't do much about that... - W: no-documentation The license files are in the xrootd-compat-libs package and the other packages Requires that one. The doxygen API documentation is not generated in the xrootd-compat package since it doesn't make sense without the -devel packages. - W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package The .so symlinks included are all plugins that are loaded at runtime. -- 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