Hi,
I am currently working on rebasing a package that creates a shared library
and I want to place it in %{_libdir}/x/y/z. I am using the
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/%[name}.conf file to do so. My question is:
Do I have to call ldconfig in %post and %postun?
Because the wiki seems to be conflicted about thi
Oh, ok thank you.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:32 AM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:26 AM Pavol Sloboda wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am currently working on rebasing a package that creates a shared
> library and I want to place it in %{_libdir
> Are those really plugins then? "Plugins" usually aren't loaded by
> ld.so, but rather "dlopen"d.
> Unversioned .so files are usually not allowed to be in the ld.so paths.
> But if you put the ld.so config snippet into the subpackage that ships
> the runnable tests, that should be fine, I think ..
> > I think we could actually remove all 32-bit libraries *not* required by
> > Steam for Fedora *43*. That should probably be uncontroversial, right?
> If that included the above packages and their dependencies then I'd be
> fine with that.
I don't think this is a solution, cause the list of the
Hi,
if you look here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_distro_wide_guidelines
in the Mandatory macros section it explains the 'site-packages' dir. It is
where all the pure python modules are installed and most likely it is where
the pyproject_* macros install fil
Hello, I have recently done a rebase of mysql-connector-python from 8.0.21
to 8.0.33 and among the many changes made in the rebase was the inclusion
of a couple of types of buildable documentation (e.g.: html, man pages,
e.t.c.). A problem arises when I started looking into the licensing for all
th
Hello,
I am currently reworking the tests for bodhi for Mariadb from STI to TMT as
per the fedora change [0] and I came across an issue with the versioned vs
unversioned rpms of Mariadb (this issue seems to be present in the STI
tests as well), where the versioned mariadb rpms are named differentl
Hello,
I have just been going over the Filesystem Layout section[0] of the
packaging guidelines and I have noticed we are linking the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard[1] as a whole and not a general version of it. At the
moment there are two versions mentioned on the linked website. These being
v2.3
> FHS, even version 3, has mostly missed the evolution of Linux systems
> that has happened in the last few decades. In particular, it
> completely missed the usr-merge, and obviously the merge of bin and
> sbin… Just looking at the contents table, it is full of outdated
> stuff, it talks about /mn
ng a concrete mention of
the standard we are using at the moment and addressing the new things that
have been changed lately (e.g.: the abovementioned
`/usr/bin` `/usr/sbin` merge).
Pavol.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:49 PM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6 2025 at 08:52:19 AM +02:00:0
gt; On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 05:59:45AM -0700, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 5:55 AM Pavol Sloboda
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But it's already done? It's right there.
> > >
> > > Well as my email mentions it is done for FHS 2.3 (a
11 matches
Mail list logo
