[opensuse-packaging] Problem packaging a library
Hello everyone, I'm attempting to package a library plus a few dependent executables. Said library is alas static-only, but since about twelve executables depend on it, it seemed like a waste and therefore I patched the source to build it shared. But then I got stuck. I don't think I can set a SOVERSION because there would be no guarantee of API/ABI compatibilty upwards, but its SONAME ends with a digit and rpmlint seems to be confused by this. I've read https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy and it doesn't seem to cover this particular case. Should I rename the library? Force a version? Ignore rpmlint's warnings or what else? Thanks -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Problem-packaging-a-library-tp5083912.html Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 2017-03-27 21:55, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Said library is alas static-only
I don't think I can set a SOVERSION because there would be no guarantee of API/ABI compatibilty upwards, but its SONAME ends with a digit and rpmlint seems to be confused by this.
If there is only a static library, there is no official SONAME, ergo the filename cannot end in a digit (and should not be made to, either). Compatibility is not a problem that needs to be solved. Uniqueness is.
I've read https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy and it doesn't seem to cover this particular case.
Section "When there is no versioning", subclause "it is suggested to enter the complete package version into the SONAME". This ensures the uniqueness.
Should I rename the library? Force a version? Ignore rpmlint's warnings or what else? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
On Monday 2017-03-27 21:55, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Said library is alas static-only
I don't think I can set a SOVERSION because there would be no guarantee of API/ABI compatibilty upwards, but its SONAME ends with a digit and rpmlint seems to be confused by this.
If there is only a static library, there is no official SONAME, ergo the filename cannot end in a digit (and should not be made to, either).
I mean that the SONAME created after the static library's name ends with a digit. So, libfoo4.a becomes libfoo4.so and then libfoo4-1.2.3.so packaged as libfoo4-1_2_3. Is that "4" going to create problems to anything? Would it make sense to rename it to libfoofour or something? Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Problem-packaging-a-library-tp5083912p50839... Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2017-03-28 09:34, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
If there is only a static library, there is no official SONAME, ergo the filename cannot end in a digit (and should not be made to, either).
I mean that the SONAME created after the static library's name ends with a digit. So, libfoo4.a becomes libfoo4.so and then libfoo4-1.2.3.so packaged as libfoo4-1_2_3.
Is that "4" going to create problems to anything? Would it make sense to rename it to libfoofour or something?
That will not be necessary. The name transformation is to happen exactly like you said. If rpmlint complaints, the blame is on rpmlint being not bright enough. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
Jan Engelhardt
-
Luigi Baldoni