[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 11:15:16 CEST 2012

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Pascal Terjan <pterjan at gmail.com> wrote:
+> 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.
+
+The change https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/ac2270b1f9c445fd39e48051b99d35d9b9693a34
+is the culprit
+