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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Commo
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). M
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 a
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, u
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
--
dev
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 i
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 th
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 this if necessary).
>
> Why is this a
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 this if necessary).
Why is this a problem, assuming the name doesn't conflict with anything? (Of
course a g
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:20:43PM +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
> p
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 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):
On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
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
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, invalid
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 be
15 matches
Mail list logo
