[opensuse-packaging] Shared library packaging
Hello, I have a shared library package named libmupen64plus2 (based on its soname libmupen64plus.so.2) and an accompanying development package with the headers and documentation named libmupen64plus-devel (following the shlibs packaging policy). The latter explicitly requires the former (it has a Requires: libmupen64plus2 = %{version}). Yet rpmlint now complains with libmupen64plus-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on libmupen64plus/libmupen64plus-libs/liblibmupen64plus Is there anything wrong here or can I just ignore that? -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 03/04/2010 11:04 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Hello,
I have a shared library package named libmupen64plus2 (based on its soname libmupen64plus.so.2) and an accompanying development package with the headers and documentation named libmupen64plus-devel (following the shlibs packaging policy). The latter explicitly requires the former (it has a Requires: libmupen64plus2 = %{version}). Yet rpmlint now complains with libmupen64plus-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on libmupen64plus/libmupen64plus-libs/liblibmupen64plus Is there anything wrong here or can I just ignore that?
It seems OK and I think you can ignore it. DirK: Shouldn't rpmlint also check for libmupen64plus.* regexp? -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 03/04/2010 11:04 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Hello,
I have a shared library package named libmupen64plus2 (based on its soname libmupen64plus.so.2) and an accompanying development package with the headers and documentation named libmupen64plus-devel (following the shlibs packaging policy). The latter explicitly requires the former (it has a Requires: libmupen64plus2 = %{version}). Yet rpmlint now complains with libmupen64plus-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on libmupen64plus/libmupen64plus-libs/liblibmupen64plus Is there anything wrong here or can I just ignore that?
It seems OK and I think you can ignore it.
DirK: Shouldn't rpmlint also check for libmupen64plus.* regexp?
rpmlint should instead check if .so links in the -devel packages are non-dangling if one of the requires of the -devel package is installed. The name-check is just bogus in many cases. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 04 March 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
DirK: Shouldn't rpmlint also check for libmupen64plus.* regexp?
yes, it should. it used to do that (was a local patch) but it seems the patch got lost or wrongly rediffed. please file a bugreport.
rpmlint should instead check if .so links in the -devel packages are non-dangling if one of the requires of the -devel package is installed.
The name-check is just bogus in many cases.
rpmlint does not install any packages, nor can check more than one package at the same time, so thats not possible. I think a namebased check is fine since we have quite strict rules on how the packages should be named :) Greetings, Dirk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Dirk Müller -
Guido Berhoerster -
Pavol Rusnak -
Richard Guenther