[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401





------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2006-07-17 14:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> > 10) standard practice in Fedora is to symlink back to the actual .so rather
> > than create a trail of symlinks
> 
> I'm not sure what this means?

In this bit of the spec...

for file in libssldap50.so libprldap50.so libldap50.so
do
  mv $file $file.%{major}.%{minor}
  ln -s $file.%{major}.%{minor} $file.%{major}
  ln -s $file.%{major} $file
done

...$file is a symlink to $file.major, which is a symlink to $file.major.minor.
$file should just symlink up to $file.major.minor instead.
 
> > 14) unversioned .so files must go in -devel package when there are
> > also versioned .so's
> 
> But then if someone links an app against libldap50.so (in the devel package),
> how does the app find libldap50.so at runtime when it doesn't exist on the
> system, only libldap50.so.5.17?

I can't say I know the specifics of it, but I know it works. :) Its explicitly
called out that way in the packaging guidelines, and does work for umpteen
libraries already in Fedora Core and Extras.

> > 15) rpmlint complains about invalid sonames, I presume this is a side-effect
> > of renaming them:
> 
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap-5.0.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap-5.0.so.5.17 libldap50.so
> 
> Where do /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 and the others come from?  All of my
> lib names should begin with lib[ss,pr]ldap50

Bah, that was from me playing around a bit to see if it was just the file name
it didn't like. The actual output to be concerned about is:

E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap50.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap50.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap50.so.5.17 libldap50.so

I believe the versioning should be encoded somewhere in the shared lib, but at
build time, unversioned libs are being created. A 'strings
/usr/lib(64)/lib<whatever>' for any library with a versioning includes
lib<whatever.so.<version> in the output, while lib*ldap50.so.* only includes
lib*ldap50.so. That being the case, it looks like either something needs to be
done at build time to put the right versioning info in there, or only the
unversioned lib should be packaged.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.