Bug 2229142 - RPMinspect warnings regarding the 64_ suffix version of the libraries and their subpackage requirements
Summary: RPMinspect warnings regarding the 64_ suffix version of the libraries and the...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: lapack
Version: 39
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2231806
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-08-04 11:04 UTC by Jakub Martisko
Modified: 2024-11-27 21:26 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
: 2231806 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-11-27 21:26:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
rpmdeps log (164.37 KB, text/plain)
2023-08-04 11:06 UTC, Jakub Martisko
no flags Details

Description Jakub Martisko 2023-08-04 11:04:37 UTC
Hello, 
while porting some of the fixes from Fedora to RHEL, I am getting bunch of warnings from the RPMinspect like the following (will add a related part of the log as an attachment):

Subpackage blas-devel on aarch64 carries 'Requires: libblas64_.so.3()(64bit)' which comes from subpackage blas64_ but does not carry an explicit package version requirement. Please add 'Requires: blas64_ = %{version}-%{release}' to the spec file to avoid the need to test interoperability between various combinations of old and new subpackages.
 
Suggested remedy:

Add the indicated explicit Requires to the spec file for the named subpackage. Subpackages depending on shared libraries in another subpackage must carry an explicit 'Requires: SUBPACKAGE_NAME = %{version}-%{release}' in the spec file.

These all seem to be related to the 64_ suffix versions of the libraries, introduced in the rhbz#1295965. 


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
rpminspect-fedora -T rpmdeps lapack-3.11.0-5.fc39 (this version seems to report also some of the libraries without the 64_ suffix unlike the lapack-3.9.0-8.el9 on the RHEL)



Edit: I am also getting a bunch of conflicts in our upgradibility tests which seem to be related to this:
 file /usr/lib64/libblas64_.so.3 from install of blas64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package blas64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64
 file /usr/lib64/libcblas64_.so.3 from install of blas64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package blas64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64
 file /usr/lib64/liblapack64_.so.3 from install of lapack64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lapack64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64

Comment 2 Fedora Release Engineering 2023-08-16 08:13:56 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

Comment 3 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-08 11:01:07 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '39'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden.
Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Comment 4 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-27 21:26:55 UTC
Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26.

Fedora Linux 39 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.