[Bug 1191776] New: [SLPP] pacemaker: E: shlib-policy-name-error
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 Bug ID: 1191776 Summary: [SLPP] pacemaker: E: shlib-policy-name-error Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Basesystem Assignee: screening-team-bugs@suse.de Reporter: martin.liska@suse.com QA Contact: qa-bugs@suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- The following rpmlint error was seen for the package: pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libcib.so.27, expected package suffix: 27 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libcrmcluster.so.29, expected package suffix: 29 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libcrmcommon.so.34, expected package suffix: 34 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libcrmservice.so.28, expected package suffix: 28 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: liblrmd.so.28, expected package suffix: 28 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libpacemaker.so.1, expected package suffix: 1 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libpe_rules.so.26, expected package suffix: 26 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libpe_status.so.28, expected package suffix: 28 pacemaker.log:[ 334s] libpacemaker3.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error SONAME: libstonithd.so.26, expected package suffix: 26 Note the updated rpmlint will reach openSUSE:Factory soon. We would like to make 'shlib-policy-name-error' a package build failure error, so please fix the error. Link to the SLPP documentation: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Package_nam... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1191323 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 Andreas Stieger <Andreas.Stieger@gmx.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ygao@suse.com Component|Basesystem |High Availability Assignee|screening-team-bugs@suse.de |ha-bugs@suse.de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c1 Yan Gao <ygao@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.liska@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(martin.liska@suse | |.com) --- Comment #1 from Yan Gao <ygao@suse.com> --- I don't see how the policy applies to the case in here. We want a single binary package to ship a set of library files with their own naming and versioning, but are from a single same version of pacemaker and MUST be shipped/installed/updated all together. How is the policy sensible at all for this? It's very common for a single binary package to ship multiple library files. It's not only common in other linux distributions. I can tell there are other SUSE packages doing this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c2 Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(martin.liska@suse | |.com) | --- Comment #2 from Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> --- Then please filter out the errors in rpmlintrc file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c5 Peter Varkoly <varkoly@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |varkoly@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(ygao@suse.com) --- Comment #5 from Peter Varkoly <varkoly@suse.com> --- Please take care about https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/979182 Some one want to introduce an other solution. Please decline it if it is not wanted. My SR is: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/979272 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1191323 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 Andreas Stieger <Andreas.Stieger@gmx.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ygao@suse.com Component|Basesystem |High Availability Assignee|screening-team-bugs@suse.de |ha-bugs@suse.de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c1 Yan Gao <ygao@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.liska@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(martin.liska@suse | |.com) --- Comment #1 from Yan Gao <ygao@suse.com> --- I don't see how the policy applies to the case in here. We want a single binary package to ship a set of library files with their own naming and versioning, but are from a single same version of pacemaker and MUST be shipped/installed/updated all together. How is the policy sensible at all for this? It's very common for a single binary package to ship multiple library files. It's not only common in other linux distributions. I can tell there are other SUSE packages doing this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c2 Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(martin.liska@suse | |.com) | --- Comment #2 from Martin Li��ka <martin.liska@suse.com> --- Then please filter out the errors in rpmlintrc file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191776#c5 Peter Varkoly <varkoly@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |varkoly@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(ygao@suse.com) --- Comment #5 from Peter Varkoly <varkoly@suse.com> --- Please take care about https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/979182 Some one want to introduce an other solution. Please decline it if it is not wanted. My SR is: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/979272 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com