On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is Be Bold this
is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a
draft in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Common_Rpmlint_issues (the
Discussion tab). My plan
On 04/27/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
You
I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is Be Bold this
is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a
draft in
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 17:20 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
Thanks again. Following this advice when packaging makes perfect sense
to me. Still, when reviewing, my question is how hard I should push
it. If I understand Kevin correct I shouldn't push it all (?). Is your
position that private,
On 04/23/2012 03:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 17:20 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
Thanks again. Following this advice when packaging makes perfect sense
to me. Still, when reviewing, my question is how hard I should push
it. If I understand Kevin correct I shouldn't push it
On 2012-04-20 17:08, Kevin Kofler wrote:
There's no need
for a soname version if the library comes from the same package as the only
user(s) of it.
If there's no version in a soname, why would one want a soname in a
library (public or private) in the first place instead of just omitting it?
Ville Skyttä wrote:
If there's no version in a soname, why would one want a soname in a
library (public or private) in the first place instead of just omitting
it?
Because the build tools always automatically fill in the soname field even
when it is redundant.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores
private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is
'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors. One example is [3]
The proper way is to store these libs outside of ld.so's search path (in
which case rpmlint can
Alec Leamas wrote:
Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores
private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is
'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors.
There's no requirement that our packages have no errors from rpmlint. As far
as I know,
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:32:59PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As far
as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging
guidelines.
To my understanding, this is not really clear. From [1] I find (
thanks to tibbs):
As an
On 04/20/2012 05:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:32:59PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As far
as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging
guidelines.
To my understanding, this is not really clear.
On 04/20/2012 06:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a
blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
build scripts to fix
11 matches
Mail list logo
