On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 02:29 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Adam Williamson
> <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@redhat
> > > .com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump
> > > > > in
> > > > > Rawhide
> > > > > today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks
> > > > > like
> > > > > the
> > > > > only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs
> > > > > rebuilding.
> > > > > I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't work I'll
> > > > > contact
> > > > > the
> > > > > maintainer.
> > > > >
> > > > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is
> > > > there
> > > > any reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged
> > > > in
> > > > the packaging guidelines?
> > > That would only fix problem where upstream is well disciplined
> > > and
> > > properly manages soversions.
> > >
> > > If I have any doubt I always build test packages and do a
> > > comparison
> > > with abi-compliance-checker.
> >
> > Sure, but handling it most of the time is better than handling it
> > none
> > of the time. I agree with Yaakov that the guidelines should
> > discourage
> > spec files using globs for soversions.
> > --
> > Adam Williamson
> > Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> > http://www.happyassassin.net
> >
>
> I'll admit that I'm guilty of this when I craft packages targeting
> Fedora. For the most part, it's because I don't have a good reason to
> care about the soversion (aside from making sure it exists). When I'm
> making packages targeting Mageia or openSUSE, I do actually care
> about
> it, because the library package is supposed to include the soversion
> in the name. Fedora's guidelines don't require the soversion to be
> part of the package name (which I like), but at the same time, it's a
> bit disconcerting that our repository policies and the way Yum/DNF
> work do not allow us to take advantage of RPM's capability to
> parallel
> install multiple versions of a package with the same name. Provided
> that they don't have file conflicts, I don't see why this isn't
> supported in Yum/DNF. I do understand it adds a bit of burden onto
> Fedora to maintain a multitude of library package versions, but it's
> rather bizarre that Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
> that doesn't have a consistent policy on dealing with cases where
> multiple versions of the same library package must exist (either
> temporarily or permanently). I've seen different conventions used
> across the board, which makes things very confusing...
There is a guideline for this, but it's not very precise:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#MultiplePackages
The reason to not use globs anyway, though, is simple and exactly the
one in this thread: when the soname changes, all the package's
dependencies need rebuilding. Thus, as the packager, you need to know
when the soname changes. If you use a glob for the filename, you don't
automatically know when the soname changes. If you don't use a glob,
you do automatically know when the soname changes. Thus it's better.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
