https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 --- Comment #22 from Dave Love <dave.love@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > A test for rpmlint. There is below warning. But I like to postpone to fix it. > > ``` > htslib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9 I confess I ignore those. I'm not at all sure it's sensible as a general stipulation. > > * licensecheck says Expat rather than MIT -- I haven't checked > > There is no "Expat" in the short name list used as "License:"'s value. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > > Also below package setting "MIT" is actually detected as "Expat" by > licensecheck command. > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-uber-zap/blob/master/f/golang-uber- > zap.spec#_33 > > I think "MIT" is fine. Ah. That probably merits a bug report. > `make` command creates libhts.so (actual so file) and libhts.so.2 (symbolic > link to libhts.so) on the current directory. > But `make install prefix=$(pwd)/dist` creates below files soname: > libhts.so.1.9 and symbolic links: libhts.so and libhts.so.2. libhts.so.1.9 > is the actual soname used in the binary RPM file. > > ``` > $ ls -l dist/lib/ > total 10576 > -rw-r--r-- 1 jaruga jaruga 7165054 Sep 15 21:54 libhts.a > lrwxrwxrwx 1 jaruga jaruga 13 Sep 15 22:01 libhts.so -> libhts.so.1.9 > -rw-r--r-- 1 jaruga jaruga 3653800 Sep 15 21:55 libhts.so.1.9 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 jaruga jaruga 13 Sep 15 22:01 libhts.so.2 -> libhts.so.1.9 > drwxr-xr-x 2 jaruga jaruga 4096 Sep 15 22:01 pkgconfig/ > ``` > > Do you have any concerns about this situation? > I suppose that current situation is no problem. It's simply wrong. .so.1.9 and .so.2 imply incompatible ABIs. Using 1.9 suggests that it's doing the wrong thing anyhow, by using the software version, not the ABI version, so you probably don't want to follow it. Without investigating, I don't know whether it would be best to use .so.1 or .so.2 in the soname. Then the spec should use that explicitly in %files, not a glob, to be proof against inadvertent changes. For packaging info see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning Also, the advice is to glob man pages in %files <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages>. If you use %make_build, it includes smp_mflags, so remove that. -fPIC is redundant in CFLAGS as it comes from the compiler specs. You should also set LDFLAGS to %build_ldflags or similar. Hope that helps. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
