On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:44:43PM +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

2010/7/28 Greg KH :

...

I'm trying to package up the liboauth library (needed for my bti tool as twitter is about to require oauth authentication soon) and I'm getting the following error from rpmlint:

       liboauth.i586: E: shlib-policy-name-error (Badness: 10000) liboauth0        Your package contains a single shared library but is not named after its        SONAME.

My .spec file seems sane and simple, yet I can't figure out the real issue here.  Odds are it's a problem in the original package, as I can't see any other distro packaging it yet and it's very new.

My package is at:        https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=liboauth&project=home%3Agregkh

if anyone wants to take a look at it and tell me how badly I messed it up :)

And yes, I did read the information at:        http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy but can't find anything relevant to this issue there, but I might be totally missing the relevant portion.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Since the soname of the library is liboauth.so.0 the package that contain it must be named liboauth0, but your package is named liboauth (lacks the 0 at the end). You just need to rename it.

Ah, thanks, that makes a bit more sense, but not entirely, why don't all libraries have the N at the end of their package names?

Note that the devel package must be named liboauth-devel, not liboauth0-devel. So you can't do "%package devel", instead you will need "%package -n liboauth-devel".

Thanks, that makes sense. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-07-28 21:44:43 +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

Since the soname of the library is liboauth.so.0 the package that contain it must be named liboauth0, but your package is named liboauth (lacks the 0 at the end). You just need to rename it.

WRONG solution. right solution: liboauth.spec Name: liboauth ... %define libname liboauth0 %package -n %{libname} ... %package devel Requires: %{libname} = %{version} ... no %files section for main package so it wont get created. that way you dont have to rename the spec file/main package on every soversion bump. see my submitrequest. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:27:15PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

El 28/07/10 16:23, Greg KH escribió:

...

Ah, thanks, that makes a bit more sense, but not entirely, why don't all libraries have the N at the end of their package names?

Because not all libraries have been adapted to the policy yet.

Then how are they building properly in obs? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 05:07:52PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

El 28/07/10 16:59, Greg KH escribió:

...

Then how are they building properly in obs?

They are whitelisted.

Ah, ok, that makes sense why trying to look at a package that was building today was not causing those errors. Fun stuff, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-07-28 22:43:03 +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

but who cares? ;-)

everyone, who wants to get a package into distro. especially why use a crappy solution when you got a nice and easy one aswell? darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-07-29 00:27:46 +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

Anyway, I don't want to win the "best solution award" here. But please, don't reject SRs because of this IMHO matter of taste...

nothing to do with taste. the policy says spec name and Name: have to match. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

2010/7/29 Marcus Rueckert :

On 2010-07-29 00:27:46 +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

...

Anyway, I don't want to win the "best solution award" here. But please, don't reject SRs because of this IMHO matter of taste...

nothing to do with taste. the policy says spec name and Name: have to match.

Where? An important thing the SLPP says is "The main rationale is to allow for two (incompatible) versions of a shared library packaged as libfoo1 and libfoo2 installed at the same time without causing RPM conflicts" And since your solution doesn't allows two -debugsource packages of (incompatible) versions of a shared library it violates that *main* rationale. Anyway, if you are going to reject SRs because of this it's OK with me.... IFF you patch rpmlint and convert that warning in an error. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org