https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661 Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #5) > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ > This package does not depend on openssl-1.1-devel: # rpm -qa | grep openssl openssl-libs-3.0.5-5.fc38.x86_64 openssl-3.0.5-5.fc38.x86_64 openssl-devel-3.0.5-5.fc38.x86_64 # dnf --repoid=f38-build builddep ~test/rpmbuild/SPECS/dnf5.spec [...] ======================================================================================================= Installing: bash-completion noarch 1:2.11-8.fc37 f38-build 291 k cppunit-devel x86_64 1.15.1-7.fc37 f38-build 57 k doxygen x86_64 2:1.9.5-2.fc38 f38-build 4.7 M fmt-devel x86_64 9.1.0-1.fc38 f38-build 123 k gpgme-devel x86_64 1.17.0-4.fc37 f38-build 165 k libcomps-devel x86_64 0.1.18-4.fc37 f38-build 28 k librepo-devel x86_64 1.14.4-1.fc38 f38-build 34 k libsmartcols-devel x86_64 2.38.1-2.fc38 f38-build 14 k python3-breathe noarch 4.34.0-3.fc37 f38-build 241 k python3-sphinx_rtd_theme noarch 1.0.0-8.fc37 f38-build 69 k ruby-devel x86_64 3.1.2-169.fc38 f38-build 419 k rubygem-test-unit noarch 3.5.3-202.fc37 f38-build 79 k sdbus-cpp-devel x86_64 1.2.0-1.fc38 f38-build 32 k sqlite-devel x86_64 3.39.3-2.fc38 f38-build 143 k toml11-devel x86_64 3.7.1-2.fc37 f38-build 83 k zchunk-devel x86_64 1.2.3-1.fc38 f38-build 15 k Installing dependencies: clang-libs x86_64 15.0.0-3.fc38 f38-build 21 M clang-resource-filesystem x86_64 15.0.0-3.fc38 f38-build 13 k cppunit x86_64 1.15.1-7.fc37 f38-build 138 k fmt x86_64 9.1.0-1.fc38 f38-build 118 k fontawesome-fonts noarch 1:4.7.0-14.fc37 f38-build 204 k google-roboto-slab-fonts noarch 1.100263-0.18.20150923git.fc37 f38-build 239 k lato-fonts noarch 2.015-14.fc37 f38-build 3.1 M libassuan-devel x86_64 2.5.5-5.fc37 f38-build 62 k ruby x86_64 3.1.2-169.fc38 f38-build 41 k ruby-default-gems noarch 3.1.2-169.fc38 f38-build 31 k ruby-libs x86_64 3.1.2-169.fc38 f38-build 3.2 M rubygem-io-console x86_64 0.5.11-169.fc38 f38-build 26 k rubygem-power_assert noarch 2.0.1-201.fc37 f38-build 19 k rubygem-psych x86_64 4.0.3-169.fc38 f38-build 51 k rubygems noarch 3.3.22-201.fc38 f38-build 311 k rubypick noarch 1.1.1-17.fc37 f38-build 9.9 k sdbus-cpp x86_64 1.2.0-1.fc38 f38-build 98 k systemd-devel x86_64 251.5-607.fc38 f38-build 459 k Transaction Summary ======================================================================================================= I guess a tool you used for this review does take into account that "pkgconfig(libcrypto)", which is indeed build-required, is provided by multiple OpenSSL packages: # dnf --quiet --enablerepo=f38-build repoquery --whatprovides 'pkgconfig(libcrypto)' openssl-devel-1:3.0.5-5.fc38.i686 openssl-devel-1:3.0.5-5.fc38.x86_64 openssl1.1-devel-1:1.1.1q-2.fc37.i686 openssl1.1-devel-1:1.1.1q-2.fc37.x86_64 > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/base/base.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/common/common.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/comps/comps.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/conf/conf.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/logger/logger.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/plugin/plugin.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/repo/repo.so > perl5-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/rpm/rpm.so > perl5-libdnf5: > /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/transaction/transaction.so > perl5-libdnf5-cli: > /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5_cli/progressbar/progressbar.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_base.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_common.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_comps.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_conf.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_logger.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_plugin.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_repo.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_rpm.so > python3-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5/_transaction.so > python3-libdnf5-cli: > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/libdnf5_cli/_progressbar.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/base.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/common.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/comps.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/conf.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/logger.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/plugin.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/repo.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/rpm.so > ruby-libdnf5: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5/transaction.so > ruby-libdnf5-cli: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libdnf5_cli/progressbar.so These files are fine. All of them are plugins. Their respective language interpreters indeed expect file names without a soname version. Compare to other Perl, Pyhon, and Ruby packages. > libdnf5-plugin-actions: /usr/lib64/libdnf5/plugins/actions.so > python3-libdnf5-python-plugins-loader: > /usr/lib64/libdnf5/plugins/python_plugins_loader.so > > dnf5-plugins: /usr/lib64/dnf5/plugins/builddep_cmd_plugin.so > dnf5-plugins: /usr/lib64/dnf5/plugins/changelog_cmd_plugin.so > None of these libraries need to be versions. Only libraries which are in a standard dynamic linker path (see /etc/ld.so.conf) need to be versioned. > perl5-libdnf5.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol > /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libdnf5/repo/repo.so .... We need to see which exact symbol is missing. Maybe the object was not linked to libperl.so (missing -lperl from LDFLAGS). Though it would be only a cosmetic fix because the only code which loads Perl extensions is libperl.so. Hence always implicitly loaded. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
