https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469208
User lnussel@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469208#c1
Ludwig Nussel
openal-soft is the "default" library in openSUSE 11.1. Is the one ZYpp selects when asked by 'libopenal.so.0' and is the only one available in the DVD. But the Build Service config for 11.1 (and Factory...) says "Prefer: -libopenal0-soft -openal-soft". So installations are defaulting to openal-soft but builds are defaulting to original openal!!! At least funguloids, from Packman, shows an incompatibility between them (patch available, http://funguloids.sourceforge.net/alc_error.patch, but should be applied??).
I'm not into OpenAL but if that change is required for openal soft it most likely means that the implemention in funguloids is broken without that fix. There are other openal implementations on other operating systems as well btw and they are all supposed to behave the same.
freealut provides a libalut.la file (against shlib policy "Best Practices"). Since it is compiled against original openal (that provides also a .la file) libalut.la hardcodes a dependency against /usr/lib64/libopenal.la... the thing is openal-soft packages don't provide a .la file. So if you try to build a package that uses libtool with freealut-devel and openal-soft-devel the build fails.
That's a bug in freealut then. Feel free to file a separate bug.
The openal-soft packages are patched by us to provide a wrapper libopenal.so.0 library (openal-soft soname is libopenal.so.1), why? All openSUSE 11.1 packages should link against libopenal.so.1 (that isn't the case because the OBS config), so there is only need for libopenal.so.0 for third party binaries. If such binaries links against libopenal.so.0 it is because they were built with the original openal, should not we just install it for max compatibility? I would understand the wrapper if the original openal package was dropped... was that the idea? If so, note that the package was never removed from the distro.
so.0 is OpenAL specification 1.0 IIRC and .so.1 is OpenAL 1.1. The Interface is compatible for 99% of applications therefore the symlink.
Yes, I know, I should open different bug reports for each problem... but I'm still not sure if we wanted to use openal or openal-soft by default.
Me neither. I just packaged openal-soft because I needed it personally. There was no conclusion last time this topic was discussed on the factory list IIRC. openal SI is probably dead anyways so switching to openal-soft likely make sense. I'm not sure I'm the best maintainer for that package though. Feel free to request dropping openal on a public list. I'll close this bug as invalid as it mixes too many things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.