[opensuse-factory] Still a problem? flac package: wrong version in rpm and bin conflicts with doc
I went to install the updated flac rpm from my local repo and noticed a doc rpm as well that I wanted to look at. When I installed them I found the rpm flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64 gave an error obsoleting the documentation package: flac-doc-1.3.2-2.3.noarch flac-doc is obsoleted by (installed) flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64 But looking at the packages, the x86 doesn't contain any of the doc files except an authors and a readme. and 2 manpages. The doc file contains 272 files that are not in the flac-binary directory. Then adding more weirdness:
/usr/bin/flac --version flac 1.3.0 rpm -qf /usr/bin/flac flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64
I.e. the bin file rpm is suppose to be 1.3.2 (current latest version), but the flac binary thinks it is still back at 1.3.0. I'm guessing no one really uses these things? I checked on the opensuse list and they say their version is unaffected. Not really sure why they would have a complete different (and working) version with the one in tumbleweed looking a bit broken... Is this still a problem in recent releases that needs a bug report? thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Linda, being around for so long, you really should know better ;-) Am 21.05.19 um 04:42 schrieb L A Walsh:
I went to install the updated flac rpm from my local repo and noticed a doc rpm as well that I wanted to look at.
When I installed them I found the rpm flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64 gave an error obsoleting the documentation package: flac-doc-1.3.2-2.3.noarch
flac-doc is obsoleted by (installed) flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64
But looking at the packages, the x86 doesn't contain any of the doc files except an authors and a readme. and 2 manpages. The doc file contains 272 files that are not in the flac-binary directory.
https://build.opensuse.org/package/rdiff/multimedia:libs/flac?linkrev=base&rev=55 Probably the doc package was dropped to avoid huge build dependencies (doxygen), when everyone interested in getting this documentation can easily build it from the source.
Then adding more weirdness:
/usr/bin/flac --version flac 1.3.0 rpm -qf /usr/bin/flac flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64
I.e. the bin file rpm is suppose to be 1.3.2 (current latest version), but the flac binary thinks it is still back at 1.3.0.
That's where I wonder where your previously demonstrated unix skill have gone ;-) strolchi:~ # rpm -q --queryformat '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n%{distribution}\n' flac flac-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64 openSUSE Tumbleweed strolchi:~ # flac --version flac 1.3.2 strolchi:~ # ldd /usr/bin/flac linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffdc85e9000) libFLAC.so.8 => /usr/lib64/libFLAC.so.8 (0x00007fee44cf1000) libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007fee44bad000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fee449e8000) libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libogg.so.0 (0x00007fee449df000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fee4504d000) strolchi:~ # strings /usr/bin/flac|grep ^1.3.2 strolchi:~ # strings /usr/lib64/libFLAC.so.8|grep ^1.3.2 1.3.2 strolchi:~ # rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libFLAC.so.8 libFLAC8-1.3.2-3.2.x86_64
I'm guessing no one really uses these things?
I checked on the opensuse list and they say their version is unaffected.
Not really sure why they would have a complete different (and working) version with the one in tumbleweed looking a bit broken...
Is this still a problem in recent releases that needs a bug report?
No. It never was a problem in any release. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2019/05/20 23:51, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Hi Linda,
being around for so long, you really should know better ;-)
Non-sequitur: The more time one spends in acquiring knowledge in a field, the more one realizes how little they really know. The ones who think they know they most, really, don't know how much they don't know.
https://build.opensuse.org/package/rdiff/multimedia:libs/flac?linkrev=base&rev=55 Probably the doc package was dropped to avoid huge build dependencies (doxygen), when everyone interested in getting this documentation can easily build it from the source.
--- if it is development documentation, perhaps it should have been included in the devel package and not just dropped to make things easier. It certainly seems to go against the basic design principle of "least astonishment".
That's where I wonder where your previously demonstrated unix skill have gone ;-)
--- Relying on dependencies of flac to pull in the library from the same sources is something one would normally assume.
Is this still a problem in recent releases that needs a bug report?
No. It never was a problem in any release.
---- So the fact that (1)'flac' that goes with libflac8-1.3.2 doesn't require it over libflac8-1.3.0 isn't a bug or problem. Nor would it be related to (2) not being able to build 'flac' with it's own libraries being *linked-statically*, as the opensuse version actually removes that option from the sources. Good to know that's not a bug or problem anyone would run into so I won't need to file a bug report -- since it would, in all likelihood be closed out with a comment that installing products from rpm's isn't a supported end-user operation (thus, as you say, "no problem"). Admittedly I should have known, but I just wasn't sure which "no problem" it was. Thank you for your assistance in clarifying it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
L A Walsh -
Stefan Seyfried