https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 --- Comment #23 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Dave, I updated the spec file and SRPM file for below URLs. > Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/hotfix/review/htslib.spec > SRPM URL: https://github.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/blob/hotfix/review/htslib-1.9-1.fc32.src.rpm?raw=true > I confess I ignore those. I'm not at all sure it's sensible as a general stipulation. I just keep it in my mind at the moment. It's not an error from rpmlint, but warning. > Ah. That probably merits a bug report. Sure. I sent email to legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to ask the question about how to set Expat license. It looks Expat license is MIT license. Then someone replied Expat was same with MIT. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/C5AHVIW3F6LF5CYLR2PSHNANFYKP327P/ > It's simply wrong. .so.1.9 and .so.2 imply incompatible ABIs. ... > so you probably don't want to follow it. I simply did not understand it well. This is my first experience for RPM packaging of "foolib". I like to follow Fedora's rule as much as possible. I defined `%global so_version 0.1` to use it like libhts.so.0.1 I also opened the ticket to ask it on upstream. https://github.com/samtools/htslib/issues/932 > Also, the advice is to glob man pages in %files done > -fPIC is redundant in CFLAGS as it comes from the compiler specs. done > You should also set LDFLAGS to %build_ldflags or similar. done What I want to ask you is when I install the binary RPM htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm, `/usr/lib64/libhts.so.2` is installed. I do not know why. ``` $ mock -i htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm <mock-chroot> sh-5.0# ls /usr/lib64/libhts* /usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 <mock-chroot> sh-5.0# rpm -ql /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 package /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 is not installed ``` I ran `rm -f libhts.so.2` in %install section, also had to set `%exclude %{_libdir}/libhts.so.2` in %files. And I also below error from rpmlint might be related to this issue. ``` htslib.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) ``` Do you know why? Here is the scratch build. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37811950 Thank you for your patience. I am learning a lot from this reviewing process. -- 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
