Description of problem: rpmlint is flagging versionless SONAMEs in dlopen'd DSOs as invalid. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): $ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.82 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Build IcedTea rpms: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070 2. rpmlint $rpm_topdir/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm Actual results: java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so libmtrace.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/heapTracker/lib/libheapTracker.so libheapTracker.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/waiters/lib/libwaiters.so libwaiters.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/gctest/lib/libgctest.so libgctest.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/heapViewer/lib/libheapViewer.so libheapViewer.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/minst/lib/libminst.so libminst.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/versionCheck/lib/libversionCheck.so libversionCheck.so java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/hprof/lib/libhprof.so libhprof.so Expected results: No output.
This is Rawhide rpmlint: $ rpm -q rpmlint rpmlint-0.82-3.fc9 My suggestion would be that rpmlint recognize DSOs that 1) have versionless SONAMEs and 2) are not in a standard library location as valid implementation-private dlopen'd DSOs.
As far as I can tell, SONAMEs are all about versioning, and versionless SONAMEs do not have any value, no matter where the files they're in are installed in. Shouldn't the unversioned SONAMEs in your example cases be just removed? Closing as dupe of bug 235486, feel free to reopen with an explanation if my understanding is incorrect. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 235486 ***