On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:18:15 +0300, Daniel Letai wrote: > Hi, > > When building gcc 5.1 rpm (based on f22 spec) to a different prefix I > get a list of .so unpackaged files: How did you modify the gcc.spec to relocate the files? Where are those files installed without your modification? You can use rpmls or repoquery to find out. Perhaps your %files sections don't match the changed location? > I know the usual solution is to place such symlinks in the <lib>-devel > package, There is _no_ such "solution". The guidelines have been updated a few times, because some packagers have put all .so files into -devel packages without a second thought. There is only one real solution: Put .so files into the (sub-)packages they belong into. Where they belong into depends on *when* they are needed? At run-time? At build-time? Both? > but for most of those libs there is no devel counterpart, GCC is a development tool in a development package that doesn't have -devel in its name. With a bit of fantasy one could make it depend on lots of -devel packages just to be explicit for some of the libs, but some of the build-time libs may be needed always, so they are not in separate packages (except for runtime libs). > so I'm wondering what are best practices in this case. Put them where they belong. > I figure I can > 1. Just ignore them (I have %global _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0) > 2. Remove them in %install That sounds much as if you don't know what you're doing. > 3. Add them to their respective %files lib > 4. Create an %files lib-devel for each one > > Which is preferred, if at all? > As a potential follow-up: If 1 or 3, why bother creating them in the > first place? -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
