On Apr 11, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > wrong sender.. fgrf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Per Øyvind Karlsen <peroyv...@mandriva.org> > Date: 2011/4/11 > Subject: Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm/ CHANGES rpm/lib/ librpm.vers rpmds.c > rpmds.h rpmfc.c > To: rpm-devel@rpm5.org > > > 2011/4/11 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>: >> I knew I'd seen this symlink patch before: >> >> >> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-April/001037.html >> >> I did not like the patch the first time, and I don't like it 5 years later. >> >> I will rework the issue under #if RPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA across the board. >> >> Note that the rule (already implemented except you've turned it off) >> All symlinks depend on their end-point. >> not only covers the special case of ELF libraries (when the symlink is >> explicitly "owned" by a package), but all other cases of symlinks to >> end-points in other packages. Yes you will need to teach URPMI and other >> depsolvers about symlink end-points constructed from RPMTAG_FILELINKTOS >> data, very not hard. >> >> The only remaining "feature" is the explicit >> Requires: devel(whatever) >> added to metadata. I fully realize the difficulties >> of transitive closure in "dependency hell", but hey, lets not >> go around in circles all over again. >> >> Note that the rule I've stated requires zero additional metadata, >> the linkto dependency is constructed on the install box from the symlink >> end-points that are already in metadata (but you're likely choosing to >> disable that functionality some 4? 5? years after being implemented). >> > Hm, I suspect you're misunderstanding the purpose of the devel() > dependencies..
See the link where Stefan advocated.
>
> They're not in place for adding dependencies on where symlinks points at,
> but rather as an identifier for where 'symlink to SONAME ending with
> .so in filename'
You will need to give me an explicitly worked example
because there can be multiple symlinks like here:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Feb 22 18:11 /usr/lib/libz.so ->
libz.so.1.2.5*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Feb 14 12:33 /usr/lib/libz.so.1 ->
libz.so.1.2.5*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 Feb 14 12:33 /usr/lib/libz.so.1.2.5 ->
../../lib/libz.so.1.2.5*
The DT_SONAME is actually:
$ readelf -a /usr/lib/libz.so.1.2.5 | grep SONAME
0x0000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libz.so.1]
And so I see
$ rpm -q --provides libzlib-devel
libz-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
libzlib-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
zlib-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
uClibc-zlib-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
uClibc-zlib1-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
pkgconfig(zlib) = 1.2.5
==> devel(libz)
libzlib-devel = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
libzlib-devel(x86-32) = 1.2.5-3mdv2011.0
and "devel(libz)" isn't an SONAME at all but rather something that you are
calling a SONAME.
And I don't know what you mean by "identifier" since I haven't any idea
what is being identified (except de facto what Mandriva wants and what Stefan
wanted etc).
> is considered as being part of a devel package, hence the
> devel(soname) provides,
> with requires added for all devel(SONAME) found under DT_REQUIRED (so it's
> more
> dependencies related to what libraries linked at rather than symlinks
> endpoints to).
>
And so the DT_NEEDED (there is no DT_REQUIRED afaik) is actually:
$ readelf -a /usr/lib/librpmio-5.3.so | grep NEEDED
...
0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libz.so.1]
or if you prefer
$ ldd /usr/bin/rpm
...
libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb65a7000)
All of which appear consistently to claim "libz.so.1" as the SONAME.
And "libz.so.1" does _NOT_ appear in
Requires: devel(libz)
> These are actually quite convenient dependencies added, as it prevents having
> to
> manually add dependencies on other -devel packages in the -devel package that
> it usually tends to depend on.
>
Um, I do not see "convenient" whatsoever. I see yet more confusion.
> I'm okay with the helper beng disabled by default, but I really don't
> see any good
> reason for moving it under #ifdef mandriva, that would be a step away from
> any attempts at vendor neutral approach IMO.
>
WHo else but the Mandriva monoculture uses
Requires: devel(foo)
WHy SHOULDNT the code be under
#ifdef RPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA
if only Mandriva uses?
And I don't see how a half assed patch checked in yesterday and examined
today is a step away from anything whatsoever, including being "vendor neutral".
> The devel() dependencies are way more useful in real world cooker usage than
> ie.
> the pkgconfig() etc. dependencies at least to my experienec..
I'm not in a position to say useful because I'm hearing no engineering argument,
just cooker! convenient! DT_REQUIRED!
and none of it makes any engineering sense.
The original patch that was posted (which Stefan advocated) was an
attempt to use only primary.xml and avoid having to download filelists.xml.
I understand that original intent to minimize bandwidth (didn't and doesn't work
as anticipated, but whatever).
I do not understand
Requires: devel(libz)
at all.
For similar "primary.xml only download" reasons, Mandriva has chosen to do
Provides: /path/to/file
to populate synthesis files with paths. Rather silly and bizarre imho.
In my world Provides: != Filepaths ... in fact "providing" file paths forces
a more complex implementation in RPM because everything starting with a '/'
might be in either place (or even both places) which muddies many dependency
implementation issue.
73 de Jeff
> --
> Regards,
> Per Øyvind
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
