Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (161 mails)

[Cristian Morales Vega <cmorve69@xxxxxxxx>]

2010/1/24 Dave Plater <dplater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 01/24/2010 11:25 AM, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
> > 2010/1/24 Dave Plater <dplater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > |Hi, the explanation for "||shlib-policy-missing-suffix ||Your package
> > > containing shared libraries does not end in a digit and should
> > > probably be split.||" seems to be missing from:
> > > http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/RpmLint
> > > What does it mean, what libs and split into what?
> > Just that shared libraries must be packaged following this:
> > http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy
> The lib dir contains :-
> libbaccfg.so.1      libbacfind.so        libbac.la    libbacpy.so.1
> libbac.so.1      libbacsql.so
> libbaccfg.la  libbaccfg.so.1.0.0  libbacfind.so.1      libbacpy.la
> libbacpy.so.1.0.0  libbac.so.1.0.0  libbacsql.so.1
> libbaccfg.so  libbacfind.la       libbacfind.so.1.0.0  libbacpy.so
> libbac.so          libbacsql.la     libbacsql.so.1.0.0
>
> I see that the co-maintainer has put the .la and plain .so libs in the
> devel package, is this right?

Yes, .la and .so files go to the -devel package. The SLPP says so in
the point that start with "Files needed to develop programs using
shared libraries". But in "Best Practices" it also says: "Avoid
packaging libtool config files (.la files)...". So .la files shouldn't
be packaged if they aren't **really** needed.

The rpmlint warning comes from:
%files server
...
%{_libdir}/libbac*.so.*

The ".so.*" files should go to a new package (or packageS) named as
SLPP says. I don't know if it's the case, but If the only binaries
that will use these libraries are contained in the -server package it
isn't a "real" problem. But still splitting them would do no harm.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx