Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 203633
libopal.so should be in -devel
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:41 EST
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:
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
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?
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
Sorry for the terse bugreport but I filled 31 bugs like this one, this is a bit boring :/
okay I pushed opal-2.2.3-3.fc7 with the fix, it should show in rawhide soonish, thanks ! Daniel