http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c1 --- Comment #1 from Jan Engelhardt --- Some thoughts on that.. I have a system where at least five libraries of the pack are definitely not installed while mc (uses libsmbclient) is. package libdcerpc-atsvc0 is not installed package libdcerpc-samr0 is not installed package libregistry0 is not installed package libsamba-policy0 is not installed package libwbclient0 is not installed (libsmbclient0-4.3.4-1.1.x86_64) Combining them again may cause a loss in that regard. A combination also means all those files start requiring to be updated in lockstep, which is an arbitrary limitation. If libsmbclient.so.0 were bundled in samba-libs (or samba-client-libs, whatever), then if libsmbclient.so.1 comes along, you would leave no way to have a libsmbclient0 in the system whilst having a new samba-client-libs. The lockstep clause of the Shared Library Packaging Policy which e.g. libqt4 made use of, only works if it can be ensured that future SO versions of the files shipped in one RPM subpackage are equal in value, and changing at the same time when they change. I am not convinced that samba is making this guarantee as hard as qt4 did. I do see the possibility though; libdcerpc and libdcerpc-binding almost sound alike and could be potential candidates for combination -- also because libdcerpc-binding appears not to have a separate devel package of its own.

Instead this package design causes version update by version update additional maintenance works as the baselibs.conf has to be redefined.

It is an atrocity that we even have to declare baselibs.conf for trivial SLPP packages. That is a shortcoming in {/usr/bin/build,/usr/bin/mkbaselibs}'s defaults which I already bemoaned years ago, but since apparently only code talks, that is now my cue to implementing it. : With all these points, the split libs should generally be kept and at most minimally be adjusted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c3 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CONFIRMED --- Comment #3 from Lars Müller --- It doesn't violate but it causes extra maintenance work with no benefit and need. libsmbclient and libwbclient will stay as separate packages as they had been before the spec file got needlessly overloaded. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c4 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jengelh@inai.de) --- Comment #4 from Lars Müller --- 4.4.0-8.1 builds implement the suggested approach including many added 'Obsoletes' lines. This covers all sub packages names used down to SLE 12 GA. @Jan: If your time permits please test if the suggested approach works for you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c6 Jan Engelhardt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dimstar@opensuse.org --- Comment #6 from Jan Engelhardt --- The approach does not work for exactly the reason I outlined. * libsamba-errors.so.1 and libsamba-credentials.so.0. Different SO versions. Not allowed per the policy. If the libraries were *truly private* to samba, one could squeeze an eye (like for /usr/lib64/samba), but they are not private because they have exposed header files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c7 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jengelh@inai.de) --- Comment #7 from Lars Müller --- Obsoletes libgensec0 from samba-client-libs was missing. Please test when your time permits and 4.4.0-9.1 builds are available from the OBS network:samba:TESTING/samba project. Comment #6 I'll check. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c9 --- Comment #9 from Jan Engelhardt --- It's not about Obsolete tags. The point is that if and when there is a libsamba-credentials.so.1, you will make everyone who has a program linking to libsamba-credentials.so.0 unhappy because your samba-client-libs package does not permit the concurrent installation of both. And the chance that someone might link against it there - after all, it has public headers installed to /usr/include. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|shared library packaging |superfluously implemented |considered superfluous (but |shared library packaging |isn't) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c12 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Flags|needinfo?(jengelh@inai.de) | --- Comment #12 from Lars Müller --- Thanks for the feedback. I had a discussion with an additional non SUSE Samba Team member and got the suggested approach to simplify the packaging confirmed. Also Fedora and Redhat are going a comparable way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c14 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #14 from Lars Müller --- This issue got fixed and wasn't invalid. Do not touch the resolution state again, please. See for example http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/samba.git/tree/samba.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c16 --- Comment #16 from Jan Engelhardt ---

See for example

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/samba.git/tree/samba.spec

Just because someone else does a suboptimal job does not mean you should copy it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966956#c18 --- Comment #18 from Lars Müller --- *** Bug 967406 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.