Bug 131491

Summary: Current libselinux is missing %postun /sbin/ldconfig call
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Matthias Saou <matthias>
Component: libselinuxAssignee: Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideKeywords: EasyFix
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-16 08:53:03 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 123268    
Description Flags
Patch to add missing ldconfig call and clean up the spec file. none

Description Matthias Saou 2004-09-01 18:45:45 UTC
Description of problem:
The current libselinux package has a proper %post scriplet to call
/sbin/ldconfig, but is lacking a similar %postun one.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -q --scripts libselinux-1.17.3-1
Actual results:
postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
# add libselinux to the cache

Expected results:
Also see a %postun scriplet.

Additional info:
Attached is a spec file patch that adds it and also cleans up the spec
file by mainly removing stuff that is now unneeded.
Also, I don't understand the reason to have a "Provides:
libselinux.so" in the main package. All applications I can see linked
against libselinux have a proper dependency on the .so.1 versionned
file, so that provides could/should probably be removed.

Comment 1 Matthias Saou 2004-09-01 18:46:34 UTC
Created attachment 103357 [details]
Patch to add missing ldconfig call and clean up the spec file.

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2004-09-09 17:05:40 UTC
Fixed in libselinux-1.17.9-1

Comment 3 Matthias Saou 2004-09-16 08:34:37 UTC
Indeed fixed in libselinux-1.17.9-1, but another minor weirdness
slipped in : The package's "Distribution:" tag got "Red Hat FC-3"
instead of the usual "Red Hat Linux" that all other packages have. Is
this normal?

Comment 4 Matthias Saou 2004-09-16 08:53:03 UTC
Never mind the distribution tag, seems like a more general issue of
the build system(s). I've started a thread about it :

I'll close the bug as RAWHIDE now.