fredag 11 mars 2005 17:47 skrev James Yonan:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> > > >True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
> > > >provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
> > > >provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec files
> > > >incompatible.
> > > >
> > > >Any guidance from LSB?
> > >
> > > No, LSB seems to deal with more basic issues of the O/S. What you
> > > could consider the "primatives" of a GNU/Linux systems contents.
> > > Nothing as far reaching as naming conventions for packages other than
> > > the minimum requisite packages to start & run a basic Linux system, RPM
> > > construction, etc.
> >
> > RPM appears to, at least on Red Hat and Novell/SUSE derived machines,
> > support the libraries' ELF SONAME, too, which is what my former
> > suggestion has been about, and AFAICS, the soname is the same on all
> > machines, namely liblzo.so.1 (use readelf -d to figure).
>
> Shorter term, because 2.0 final is so close, I don't want to change
> anything in the .spec except for stuff which is bracketed by %if
> "%{_vendor}" == "MandrakeSoft".
>
Well.. Mandrake is breaking it anyway... (sic!) In 10.2 beta they changed
MandrakeSoft to Mandrakesoft... :), so openvpn is not building fine in
cooker. First rpm -ta doesn't find "Specfile", which rpm in 10.2 apparently
wants, so I have to extract in manually, and then it fails because vendor is
not Mandrakesoft.
I bug reported the lzo-inconsistency a long time ago (they have other
libraries that have "compatibility provides", so having one for liblzo would
be too miuch, but so far nothing has changed to the better.
-- robin
