Strange dependencies added by rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On 20/01/2008, Mertens, Bram <mertensb at mazdaeur.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't cross-check the entire list of dependencies I found with those
> reported by rpmbuild,

Why not?

You really need to check your entire buildroot tree for any files that
cause these dependencies to be added by rpmbuild.

> I only checked whether or not the dependencies
> that are causing the problem were listed by find-requires or not.  And
> as I wrote they are not.

Uh? In your original post you showed that find-requires lists them and
adds them to the package. Now you say it doesn't?

> Do I understand correctly that these dependencies are in fact
> dependencies for building the CA siteminder agent?  And as such not
> needed when running it?

No, they are dependency of the binaries, such as executables, shared
libraries, object files, ... and more as I've explained briefly in
previous reply. An executable that depends on a specific shared
library SONAME won't run when that library cannot be found.

> Because as I wrote these dependencies aren't available on the system
> where I built the RPM so the binary installer allowed the installation
> while it couldn't find those files.

Did it look for those libraries at all?

> > > But they are not listed (well "libverify.so" is but not
> > > "libverify.so(VER_1)").
> >
> > VER_1 is a version symbol you can find in the library with
> > readelf/objdump and similar tools.
>
> Just to understand these things: then why are both libverify.so and
> libverify.so(VER_1) reported as dependency?

Because both build a set of requirements, and because at rpmbuild-time
there is no extra logic that determines whether one provides the
other.

> In the mean time I remembered that the machine I'm building the RPMs on
> is a RHEL4 machine and the machine I'll be installing it on is a RHEL3
> machine.  Could that cause problems?

What other problems do you think of? ;o)

>The software itself should run on both.

Well, does it run?