Dnia piątek, 28 sierpnia 2015 09:55:10 Jeffrey Johnson pisze:
> > On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:37 AM, Tomasz Gajc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > is this really necessary to generate these and similiar for all libraries
> > from glibc ?
> > 
> > libc.so.6
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)
> > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)
> > librt.so.1
> > librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2)
> > libm.so.6
> > libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
> > etc.
> 

Please take a look, let's say  on lib64input10-1.0.0-1-omv2015.0.x86_64.rpm

This rpm file has requires mentioned above, and all ours packages have these 
requires on "versioned" glibc libraries.

For me this is a overload to produce "versioned" requires, imho simple 
libc.so.6()(64bit) would suffice.

> If you wish to support packages built against older versioned symbols
> already deployed (including 3rd party and vendor packaging), then yes, it
> is absolutely necessary to generate those provides.

3rd Party software let's say libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0), and this is no problem 
because our libc rpm provides "libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)".

Topic is to eliminate redundant "requires" in our rpms.

> > If rpm will generate only requires for lib*.so.%{major} for glibc
> > libraries then i guess some time can be saved on generading hdlists and
> > when installing/updating rpm packages.

> That is exactly the point: %{major} for glib never changes. Instead,
> versioned symbols track ABI breakage.

Major bloat are requires on glibc libraries, iirc ABI does not change there 
much :)

> > wdyt ?
> 
> There are other techniques to track versioned symbols, most notably what Alt
> linux does.
> 
> Whether that saves clutter/space (presumably what bothers you) is an open
> question.

Yes this bothers me, as getting rid of redundant requires may reduce time of 
rpm dependency resolving, with a little hit on hdlist size.



-- 
Cheers
TPG

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
OM-Cooker mailing list
[email protected]
http://ml.openmandriva.org/listinfo.cgi/om-cooker-openmandriva.org

Reply via email to