Bug 203633

Summary:	libopal.so should be in -devel
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Patrice Dumas <pertusus>
Component:	opal	Assignee:	Daniel Veillard <veillard>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-11-06 16:26:52 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Patrice Dumas 2006-08-22 19:41:51 UTC

Description of problem:

libopal.so should be in -devel

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


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Daniel Veillard 2006-08-22 20:10:16 UTC

Huh ? can you justify ?

you should not need opal-devel to run ekiga ... That sounds quite wong.
I assume it's an error considering the complete lack of justification and
weirdness from an engineering practice.

Daniel

Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-22 20:33:57 UTC

I may be quite wrong, and it is really possible that libopal.so
should be in the main package. But in general the .so file like
libopal.so are only needed when linking, not at runtime, 
and should therefore be in the -devel package and not in the 
main package. There are exception (like dlopening, although
it is ugly), but I don't think there is such an exception for
ekiga, since there is
ldd /usr/bin/ekiga | grep opal
        libopal_linux_x86_r.so.2.2 => /usr/lib/libopal_linux_x86_r.so.2.2
(0x0444b000)

and I verified that ekiga seems to launch when there is no 
/usr/lib/libopal.so

rpmling gives a warning:

 rpmlint opal
E: opal obsolete-not-provided openh323
W: opal devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libopal.so
W: opal devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libopal_linux_x86_r.so

the second warning (about libopal_linux_x86_r.so) seems wrong, but the
one about libopal.so seems valid.

Having the .so in the main package is not right, since it is possible
to link without -devel package installed (although it may be improbable,
depending on the case).

On 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
there is a
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
I admit it doesn't cover exactly that case, since there is no suffix, 
but a library name with something between the name and the .so 
(in libopal_linux_x86_r.so) but I think it applies here anyway.

Is there a good reason for libopal.so to be in the main package and
not in -devel?

Comment 3 Daniel Veillard 2006-08-22 20:52:50 UTC

Okay, not seeing the rules I wqas wondering where this was coming from

paphio:~ -> rpm -qf /usr/lib/libxslt.so
libxslt-devel-1.1.16-1
paphio:~ -> rpm -qf /usr/lib/libxml2.so
libxml2-devel-2.6.26-2

I assume this was borken in the opal spec, okay this need fixing then.
Please give context when you create the bug reports, thanks.

Daniel

Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-22 20:57:38 UTC

Sorry for the terse bugreport but I filled 31 bugs like
this one, this is a bit boring :/

Comment 5 Daniel Veillard 2006-11-06 16:26:52 UTC

okay I pushed opal-2.2.3-3.fc7 with the fix, it should show in rawhide soonish,

  thanks !

Daniel