Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
Hi all, Now upstream has released the latest version which should all problems. Please, consider a review help. Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
Hi, On 05/15/2013 05:33 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: On 15.05.2013 17:24, Christopher Meng wrote: I've noticed it How to solve it? See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Library_Name_Conflicts Erm, no the problem here is not a name conflict, but that the library simple is not being created properly (which could be a problem with upstream's build system). Normally a library would have a versioned soname, and filename, ie, the real lib file would be: libfoo.so.1.0.1 And then there would be a symlink with the versioned soname: libfoo.so.1 - libfoo.so.1.0.1 Which gets used by ld.so during dynamic linking And an versioned symlink: libfoo.so - libfoo.so.1.0.1 Which gets used by ldd for the linking during the build. The idea here is that if the library API changes, it becomes: libfoo.so.2.0.0 libfoo.so.2 - libfoo.so.2.0.0 libfoo.so - libfoo.so.2.0.0 And then you can install both versions, so that you can use both apps linked against the old and new version, but only one -devel package, as there can be only 1 unversioned symlink for ldd, so installing both + the -devel for the newest one would have: libfoo.so.1.0.1 libfoo.so.1 - libfoo.so.1.0.1 libfoo.so.2.0.0 libfoo.so.2 - libfoo.so.2.0.0 libfoo.so - libfoo.so.2.0.0 And any newly build binaries would get linked against the new version, but old binaries will still run. If upstream simply generates a libfoo.so as the one and only single file, they are doing it wrong! This likely also means that they are breaking ABI all the time, as they clearly have no notion of this. In this case I would advice to build the library using libtools -release argument with the package version when linking (assuming they are using libtool). So then for a tarbal version of 3.5.1 you would get a: libfoo-3.5.1.so file with its soname identical to the file and when upgrading to 3.5.2 it would change to: libfoo-3.5.2.so and all packages using it will thus break (as the soname is used for finding the lib when running the binary), and will need to be rebuild. Which is a good thing in this case, since the ABI may have changed ... Regards, Hans -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
Thanks. Upstream decide to change its name. I'll update the review request later. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 09:47 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: And then you can install both versions, so that you can use both apps linked against the old and new version, but only one -devel package, as there can be only 1 unversioned symlink for ldd, so installing both + the -devel for the newest one would have: Except that in practice it's really annoying to have conflicting development headers, and what components really should do is: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/parallel.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
在 2013-5-16 PM11:09，Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org写道： [skip] This software is developed under MAC and the author haven't use any Linux distros at all. So he didn't notice the conflicts when he first released it. Now the packager of Debian and FreeBSD has also found this problem, so upstream will change soon. Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Review Swap with 3 packages
Hi, I have 3 packages: cego: A relational and transactional database https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 liblfc: Lemke Foundation Classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 liblfc-xml: Lemke Foundation Classes XML extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 These 3 packages are the core of cego database. Two libs are the BR of cego. Please help review these 3 packages. Thanks. *Yours sincerely,* *Christopher Meng* Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
Hi, On 15/05/13 17:08, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, I have 3 packages: cego: A relational and transactional database https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 liblfc: Lemke Foundation Classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 Regarding this one, I foresee a problem: If I am not mistaken, this RPM will generate a liblfc.so, which is already provided by lfc-devel. # rpm -qf /usr/lib64/liblfc.so lfc-devel-1.8.7-1.el6.x86_64 Regards. liblfc-xml: Lemke Foundation Classes XML extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 These 3 packages are the core of cego database. Two libs are the BR of cego. Please help review these 3 packages. Thanks. /Yours sincerely,/ /*Christopher Meng*/ Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
I've noticed it How to solve it? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap with 3 packages
On 15.05.2013 17:24, Christopher Meng wrote: I've noticed it How to solve it? See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Library_Name_Conflicts -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
