Bug 804698 - Wrong packaging of guichan-0.8.2
Wrong packaging of guichan-0.8.2
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: guichan (Show other bugs)
15
Unspecified Linux
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Gwyn Ciesla
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-03-19 11:51 EDT by Erik Schilling
Modified: 2012-08-06 16:01 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Erik Schilling 2012-03-19 11:51:23 EDT
Hello,

during the development of guichan the name of the libary accidently got named to 0.8.1 (should have been 0.8). When 0.8.2 came out the libary name stayed at 0.8.1.so since it was compatible and only contained some fixes. But in Fedora this libary name got included as/usr/lib/libguichan-0.8.2.so.1  which actually should be 0.8.1.

Best regards,
Erik Schilling
Comment 1 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-03-19 12:34:06 EDT
It looks like it's picking this up from our build flags.  There aren't too many packages that require this, so I could coordinate a rebuild easily, though only for rawhide.  How do I specify the solib release in your configure or Make?

For existing releases, this shouldn't cause any issues, and all our packages that need this we built to also require the wrong soname.
Comment 2 Erik Schilling 2012-03-19 12:40:41 EDT
It should be set by default:
http://gitorious.org/guichan/mainline/blobs/0.8/configure.in#line30
Comment 3 Thorbjørn Lindeijer 2012-03-19 12:50:10 EDT
Back when we released 0.8.2, we make sure to keep binary compatibility with 0.8.1, but due to the solib already including "0.8.1", we decided to keep it on that version otherwise the binary compatibility would falter at that point.

See my commit here:

http://gitorious.org/guichan/mainline/commit/430e4c70c5e141050e8d5836b2a9a25ce8e8f614

But it seems that a packager either found an issue with this or was not aware of our intention, when this patch was introduced:

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=guichan.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfa1ab37e54871af1f441df69e5016f44a250853

As far as I can see, that patch should just be dropped.
Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-03-19 12:55:44 EDT
Ok, but GUICHAN_MICRO_VERSION is set to 2.  When I ./configure ; make a vanilla tarball, it builds 0.8.1.  When I build it in the RPMs, I get 0.8.2.  Something else is happening.  

If I run autoreconf -if prior to config, I get 0.8.1.

I'll get this out to rawhide, and then rebuild the other packages.

Do you forsee a release coming that would re-align versioning and solib name?
Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-03-19 12:56:09 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Back when we released 0.8.2, we make sure to keep binary compatibility with
> 0.8.1, but due to the solib already including "0.8.1", we decided to keep it on
> that version otherwise the binary compatibility would falter at that point.
> 
> See my commit here:
> 
> http://gitorious.org/guichan/mainline/commit/430e4c70c5e141050e8d5836b2a9a25ce8e8f614
> 
> But it seems that a packager either found an issue with this or was not aware
> of our intention, when this patch was introduced:
> 
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=guichan.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfa1ab37e54871af1f441df69e5016f44a250853
> 
> As far as I can see, that patch should just be dropped.

Oh, I'll try that.  See question in #4.
Comment 6 Bruno Wolff III 2012-03-19 13:37:13 EDT
It's been a while, but my memory is that I noticed a mismatch between the microversion used for the package and the library and thought that was a mistake.
I don't believe my change was based on bad interactions with other packages.
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-03-19 13:43:35 EDT
Reasonable.  I don't expect this to be a major issue.
Comment 8 Thorbjørn Lindeijer 2012-03-19 13:48:22 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> Do you forsee a release coming that would re-align versioning and solib name?

As you can see in the configure.in, there is a todo about removing the ".1" part for 0.9 (with the idea to keep binary compatibility in patch versions). However, there is currently no active development of Guichan so this release is unlikely to be any time soon.
Comment 9 Fedora End Of Life 2012-08-06 16:01:25 EDT
This message is a notice that Fedora 15 is now at end of life. Fedora 
has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 15. It is 
Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no 
longer maintained.  At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version'
of '15' have been closed as WONTFIX.

(Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this 
occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.)

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen 
this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we were unable to fix it before Fedora 15 reached 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, you are encouraged to click on 
"Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that 
version of Fedora.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 10 Fedora End Of Life 2012-08-06 16:01:52 EDT
This message is a notice that Fedora 15 is now at end of life. Fedora 
has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 15. It is 
Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no 
longer maintained.  At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version'
of '15' have been closed as WONTFIX.

(Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this 
occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.)

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen 
this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we were unable to fix it before Fedora 15 reached 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, you are encouraged to click on 
"Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that 
version of Fedora.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

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