Bug 241550
| Summary: | Review Request: ERESI - A unified reverse engineering framework for UNIX operating systems | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Philippe Valembois <lephilousophe> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | kwizart, mtasaka, sander |
| 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: | 2007-10-07 13:54:10 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Philippe Valembois
2007-05-28 00:59:10 UTC
Some notes:
* While you want to ship -devel package, why does the shared library
%{_libdir}/*.so have no soversion? This will cause problems
when ABI of the libraries change?
* The directory %{_includedir}/libelfsh/ does not seem to be
owned by any package.
New version : SPEC File : http://www.amsn-project.net/~lephilousophe/fedora/eresi.spec SRPM : http://www.amsn-project.net/~lephilousophe/fedora/eresi-0.77-0.2.20070527cvs.fc6.src.rpm Changes: Now package owns %{_includedir}/libelfsh/ Won't fix : The guidelines say - 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. As this package doesn't contain any library file with a suffix I won't put so files in the -devel package OOps I installed F7 during both builds SRPM : http://www.amsn-project.net/~lephilousophe/fedora/eresi-0.77-0.2.20070527cvs.fc7.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > Won't fix : > The guidelines say > - 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. > > As this package doesn't contain any library file with a suffix > I won't put so > files in the -devel package Well, so again why does the library %{_libdir}/*.so has no soname while this package tries to ship -devel package? Shipping -devel package means that the libraries %{_libdir}/*.so is allowed to be linked from other packages. So some binaries in other package may link to the libraries in this package. Then ABI of the libraries in this package may change in the future. At this time, as these libraries have no sover, rpm has no clue of whether ABI of these libraries changed, so rpm allows the upgrading of this package. However, this upgrade surely stop the other binaries linking to these libraries from working any more. So IMO when the package want to provide -devel package, no-sover libraries are generally bad. What do you think? ping? Sorry, I haven't enough time for now (exams time) and I don't really know how to make these changes as it needs a complete redo of the buildchain as they don't use autoconf/automake. I thought about renaming all files but that would be useless as executables are linked against .so without soversion If you have any idea... Anyway adding sover must have done with the discussion with upstream. Would you ask the upstream of this package about adding sover? ping? ping again? I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response from the reporter is received within ONE WEEK, Hi, sorry for the late reply but I must say that I haven't any experience with soversions and upstream doesn't seem to want to add them to the makefiles... So without any help saying me how to add them (I don't really know how libtool does) I think I will have to give up this package (in addition, it seems to be really beta). Sorry... Well, what does upstream actually say? Even on the newest CVS there is no soversion (would you update to the latest anyway)? Anyway would you update the status of this bug? ping again? Sorry for the delay... I was away from an internet connection for a long time... Anyway, I must admit that I resign : the package is too complex for me and it needs an integral rewrite of the buildchain. I think that's not to a package maintainer to do such things but main developers should switch to a more robust system. Moreover, Fedora isn't my main distribution anymore because I put Gentoo on my new laptop and I won't use my desktop PC as intensively as before. Sorry. Please put the according status to the bug as I am a bit lost with that. Thank you for reply. Please feel free to open a new review request when you want. |