[Mageia-dev] Library policy query: What do we do when SONAME includes both major and minor? (Re: [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release kdelibs4-4.9.0-2.mga3)

Thu Aug 2 11:11:52 CEST 2012

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Balcaen John <mikala at mageia.org> wrote:
+> Le jeudi 2 août 2012 09:28:28 Colin Guthrie a écrit :
+>> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 01/08/12 23:09 did gyre and
+>>
+>> gimble:
+>> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote:
+>> >> I have to agree here that something is "funny" in the libattica package
+>> >> which ultimately helped to contribute to this issue.
+>> >>
+>> >> e.g. on my system before update (tho' with similar results after):
+>> >>
+>> >> [colin at jimmy ~]$ rpm -q --provides lib64attica0
+>> >> libattica.so.0.3()(64bit)
+>> >> lib64attica0 = 0.3.0-1.mga2
+>> >> lib64attica0(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.mga2
+>> >> [colin at jimmy ~]$ rpm -ql lib64attica0
+>> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3
+>> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3.0
+>> >>
+>> >> So I can see how this mistake was made and TBH I could have made the
+>> >> same mistake myself (with the caveat that I likely would not have bumped
+>> >> the version of someone else's package with out confirming first and that
+>> >> it should have been obvious from testing and installing the build)
+>> >>
+>> >> But either way this seems like an issue to fix properly (possibly with
+>> >> an upstream fix or some modification to the library policy when the
+>> >> minor version is "presented" like this).
+>> >
+>> > Good catch! Of course it's never the library policy that's wrong. The
+>> > library major version is apparently 0.4 so the correct package name is
+>> >
+>> >    lib64attica0.3  for the previous one
+>> >    lib64attica0.4  for the current one
+>> >
+>> > ... in the specfile:   %define attica_major 0.4
+>> >
+>> > Can the maintainer of this package please fix this?
+>> >
+>> > To find the version to use, look up the 'soname' of the library. I use:
+>> >   readelf -a /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.4|grep SONAME
+>> >
+>> > =>
+>> > ...                    Library soname: [libattica.so.0.4]
+>> >
+>> > What follows ".so." is the major version of the library.
+>>
+>> Is that really the correct definition of what a "major" version is?
+>>
+>> I always thought the major was just the first number.
+>>
+>> The library policy certainly doesn't mention "double digit majors" or
+>> similar.
+>>
+>> Is this something upstream is doing deliberately or is it just an oversight?
+> https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/master/entry/CMakeLists.txt
+
+Yet something includes the minor in the soname
+
+This leads to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2011-December/698438.html
+or it being flagged in debian by the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames
+lintian test.
+