[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 11:17:51 CEST 2012

'Twas brillig, and Balcaen John at 02/08/12 10:01 did gyre and gimble:
+> 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
+
+Actually it's this file/line:
+
+https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/master/entry/lib/CMakeLists.txt#L120
+
+So it's seems like this was done deliberately due to a ABI breakage a
+while ago:
+
+https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/ac2270b1f9c445fd39e48051b99d35d9b9693a34
+
+Now, this is an interesting point (regarding our lib policy) bumping the
+major for an API change and the minor for an ABI change seems kinda
+sensible to me. So how should we deal with that in our policy? Just use
+0.4 as the "major" value here as Christiaan suggested?
+
+Col
+
+-- 
+
+Colin Guthrie
+colin(at)mageia.org
+http://colin.guthr.ie/
+
+Day Job:
+  Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
+Open Source:
+  Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
+  PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
+  Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
+