Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 14:53 +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:00:08 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > > > > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:00:08 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake. > > > > What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build properly > > again? > > I think in

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:38 AM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > 2. Is the plan to update for all supported Fedora releases and not just > > Rawhide? Otherwise we're back in conditional hell which I thought we were > > trying to move away from. (Again, the suggested

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a > couple of questions: > > 1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling > ldconfig, so even if it's not technically

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 07:14 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a > couple of questions: > > 1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling > ldconfig, so even

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a couple of questions: 1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling ldconfig, so even if it's not technically required, it would be against the guidelines to remove them, correct? 2. Is the plan to

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 14:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake. > > > > What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:57:39 AM CET Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and > > there > > is no /etc/ld.so.conf under

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake. What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build properly again? I think in this situation, you need to disable this feature using: %undefine __brp_ldconfig

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:57:39 AM CET Igor Gnatenko wrote: > brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there > is no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory we > could supply one (empty), but I would ask Florian what would be the best to

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 30 January 2018 at 17:21, Tim Landscheidt wrote: [..] > You can help move this forward by publishing the script(s) > you used (or the patches that still apply cleanly if you > wrote them manually). > There is no any this kind script because ALL Fedora specs

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > […] > Who said that I'm demanding something? > Look one more time on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/736 > Igor took this tasks VOLUNTARILY and started working on necessary specs > before I've delivered batch of patches. > When I

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 30 January 2018 at 12:32, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:07:22AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > OK. So if I'll be nice, explicit and concise it will cause that Igor will > > finish at least one mass change before start another one? > > Igor

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:07:22AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > OK. So if I'll be nice, explicit and concise it will cause that Igor will > finish at least one mass change before start another one? > Igor could you pleas confirm above? Seriously, quit it. Igor doesn't work for you. Igor doesn't

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 30/01/18 12:06, Florian Weimer wrote: On 01/30/2018 01:01 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a): On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there is no /etc/ld.so.conf under

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 01/30/2018 01:01 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a): On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there is no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory we

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` >> and there is >> no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory >> we could >> supply one (empty), but I

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there is no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory we could supply one (empty), but I would ask Florian what would be the best to do. But why does it

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 09:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > ~~~ > > + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig > /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be > opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory > > ~~~ > > > What is

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Dne 30.1.2018 v 09:15 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > On 01/30/2018 09:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> ~~~ >> >> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig >> /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be >> opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory >> >> ~~~ >> >> >> What is

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 01/30/2018 09:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: ~~~ + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory ~~~ What is this ^^? Should I be worried about it? Context? ldconfig definitely

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

~~~ + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory ~~~ What is this ^^? Should I be worried about it? V. Dne 29.1.2018 v 18:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > Igor committed a change to

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 30 January 2018 at 02:11, Tim Landscheidt wrote: [..] > Unfortunately, progress in Fedora and similar projects is > not made by telling people what they are doing wrong, but by > doing The Right Thing™ yourself or in collaboration with > others. And even if one is

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > […] > This is like with with problems on taking care of the production issues or > faults. > Always needs to be someone who is controlling whole situation but this person > does not need to to person doing all OS, HW, app, db related things

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 29 January 2018 at 19:06, Igor Gnatenko wrote: [..] > > As now with file trigger changes are committed and new glibc packages > will > > be in rawhide repo it should be mass change removing all ldconfig > execution > > from **ALL** Fedora specs. > > While I

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 18:49 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward, > > glibc will run ldconfig after the

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 18:49 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward, > > glibc will run ldconfig after the

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward, > glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of the library > directory trees was modified. > > This means that libraries which package the

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward, glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of the library directory trees was modified. This means that libraries which package the lib*.so.* symbolic links will no longer have to run ldconfig in %postin/%postun,

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 15 January 2018 at 12:42, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/15/2018 05:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >> Currently /sbin/ldconfig is part of the glibc package. >> Depends which one package was installed/updated firs and which one >> second system image end ups with 32 or 64 bits

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 01/15/2018 05:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Currently /sbin/ldconfig is part of the glibc package. Depends which one package was installed/updated firs and which one second system image end ups with 32 or 64 bits /sbin/ldconfig. Depends which one binary will be present ldconfig by default goes

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 14 January 2018 at 23:32, Neal Gompa wrote: [..] >> I think that at least someone in glibc team should start to consider >> drop completely use ld.so.cache. >> This "speedup" mechanism was invented more than two decades ago when >> it was the problem with VFS layer caching.

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 14 January 2018 at 16:38, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> The glibc team has received a request to change the way

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On 14 January 2018 at 16:38, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig >> invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled. >> >>

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig > invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled. > >

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig invocations > during package installations and deinstallations are handled. > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/5 >

RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380878 Some background: ldconfig serves several