On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Pascal Terjan <pter...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Balcaen John <mik...@mageia.org> wrote: >> Le jeudi 2 août 2012 09:28:28 Colin Guthrie a écrit : >>> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 01/08/12 23:09 did gyre and >>> >>> gimble: >>> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote: >>> >> I have to agree here that something is "funny" in the libattica package >>> >> which ultimately helped to contribute to this issue. >>> >> >>> >> e.g. on my system before update (tho' with similar results after): >>> >> >>> >> [colin@jimmy ~]$ rpm -q --provides lib64attica0 >>> >> libattica.so.0.3()(64bit) >>> >> lib64attica0 = 0.3.0-1.mga2 >>> >> lib64attica0(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.mga2 >>> >> [colin@jimmy ~]$ rpm -ql lib64attica0 >>> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3 >>> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3.0 >>> >> >>> >> So I can see how this mistake was made and TBH I could have made the >>> >> same mistake myself (with the caveat that I likely would not have bumped >>> >> the version of someone else's package with out confirming first and that >>> >> it should have been obvious from testing and installing the build) >>> >> >>> >> But either way this seems like an issue to fix properly (possibly with >>> >> an upstream fix or some modification to the library policy when the >>> >> minor version is "presented" like this). >>> > >>> > Good catch! Of course it's never the library policy that's wrong. The >>> > library major version is apparently 0.4 so the correct package name is >>> > >>> > lib64attica0.3 for the previous one >>> > lib64attica0.4 for the current one >>> > >>> > ... in the specfile: %define attica_major 0.4 >>> > >>> > Can the maintainer of this package please fix this? >>> > >>> > To find the version to use, look up the 'soname' of the library. I use: >>> > readelf -a /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.4|grep SONAME >>> > >>> > => >>> > ... Library soname: [libattica.so.0.4] >>> > >>> > What follows ".so." is the major version of the library. >>> >>> Is that really the correct definition of what a "major" version is? >>> >>> I always thought the major was just the first number. >>> >>> The library policy certainly doesn't mention "double digit majors" or >>> similar. >>> >>> Is this something upstream is doing deliberately or is it just an oversight? >> https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/master/entry/CMakeLists.txt > > Yet something includes the minor in the soname > > This leads to > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2011-December/698438.html > or it being flagged in debian by the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames > lintian test.
The change https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/ac2270b1f9c445fd39e48051b99d35d9b9693a34 is the culprit