here's a base64 of a tarball reproducer;
base64 -d - > rpmbuild.tgz;tar tvf rpmbuild.tgz # (verfiy contents)
tar xf rpmbuild.tgz; cd rpmbuild; # (after you're happy with content)
./doit
--------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On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Lubos Kardos <lkardos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
rpm generates provides from sonames of ELF shared objects. If a shared object
doens't have any soname then the provide is created from name of file. rpm
generates provides only from ELF shared objects it doesn't generate provides
from symlinks to shared objects. Yes, it generates provides from hard links to
shared ojbects because of obvious reason.
Difference between rpm-4.8.0 (rhel-6.7) and rpm-4.11.3 (rhel-7.2) is that the
newer rpm requires soname to start with prefix "lib" otherwise from this soname
no provides is created. If a file doesn't have soname and a provide is created
from name of the file then the file name must start with "lib" prefix too.
This doesn't explain completely what you observed and I tested this and I got
a bit different results but nevertheless you have to follow common practices
for creating shared libraries (as was already written here) and rename your
library to match expected format of name for shared library i. e. library
name should start with lib also you should link a library to some program
using name from a generated provide then rpm will create a matching require and
dependency checking will work.
LubosFrom: "david kerns" <david.t.kerns@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "General discussion about the RPM package manager" <rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:48:13 AM
Subject: Re: error: Failed dependenciesOn Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@xxxxxxxx> wrote:In regard to: error: Failed dependencies, david kerns said (at 2:44pm on...:
Just joined the mail-list and found an (unresolved) existing thread with my
exact issue. I'm hoping this get's linked to the existing thread... (last
response Tue, Sep 1, 2015)
# rpm -i mypackage.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libtestlib.so()(64bit) is needed by mypackage.x86_64.rpm
# rpm -qlp --provides mypackage.x86_64.rpm
testlib.so()(64bit)
/opt/mypackage/lib/testlib.so
/opt/mypackage/lib/libtestlib.so
This is just a guess, but it looks like the shared library you're creating
either doesn't have a SONAME or the SONAME doesn't match the actual file
name.
You should probably read up on best practices for creating a shared
library on your platform (Linux, I presume, though you don't provide
any details about your OS, distribution, version, or RPM version, all of
which would be useful to include).ah yes, sorry:CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
RPM version 4.8.0This may end the conversation ... (but if there's a fix available on CentOS 6.7, ... we'll be there for a while)I just tried the exact thing on:CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)
RPM version 4.11.3and the rpm works without issue. Ugh!
Note: libtestlib.so is a symbolic link to testlib.so
If I make a hard link instead of a symbolic link (during the build
process), the rpm install works fine
That seems to confirm that it's an issue with the SONAME. Read up
on shared libraries on Linux and the SONAME.
thanks ...I tried adding (one at a time) both SONAME libtestlib.so and testlib.so ... both fail with the listed SONAME$ objdump -p BUILDROOT/mypackage-1.0-0.1.x86_64/tmp/mypackage/lib/libtestlib.so | grep SONAME
SONAME testlib.so
$ rpm -qlp --provides RPMS/x86_64/mypackage-1.0-0.1.x86_64.rpm
testlib.so()(64bit)
mypackage = 1.0-0.1
mypackage(x86-64) = 1.0-0.1
/tmp/mypackage
/tmp/mypackage/bin
/tmp/mypackage/bin/main
/tmp/mypackage/lib
/tmp/mypackage/lib/libtestlib.so
/tmp/mypackage/lib/testlib.so
/tmp/mypackage/src
$ objdump -p BUILDROOT/mypackage-1.0-0.1.x86_64/tmp/mypackage/lib/libtestlib.so | grep SONAME
SONAME libtestlib.so
$ rpm -qlp --provides RPMS/x86_64/mypackage-1.0-0.1.x86_64.rpm
libtestlib.so()(64bit)
mypackage = 1.0-0.1
mypackage(x86-64) = 1.0-0.1
/tmp/mypackage
/tmp/mypackage/bin
/tmp/mypackage/bin/main
/tmp/mypackage/lib
/tmp/mypackage/lib/libtestlib.so
/tmp/mypackage/lib/testlib.so
/tmp/mypackage/srcPS: if this is a package you will eventually distribute to customers,
it's even more important that you follow more of the Linux conventions
for shared libraries.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney@xxxxxxxx
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164Per Jay Hendron's suggestion:
Maybe a silly suggestion, but could you add a "Provides: libtestlib.so()(64bit)" tag to your spec file and rebuild?Which ever (or both) one I list as for "Provides:" adds another depends in the "rpm -qlp" output.
So, it does seem like a bug, but already fixed by 4.11.3_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
