[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Please review this list of potentially missing .so symlinks.



Back story:
talking to che in #fedora-devel, and  he came across the fact that libgnomebt.so
symlink was not included and thus he was unable to build and link to libgnomebt.
Che did a little digging and discovered a small error in the spec that
left the symlink unpackaged. Appearently, to my great horror, rpm
doesn't notice when symlinks go unpackaged and doesn't warn about it
when building a package.  Made me wonder if there were other missing
.so symlinks.

The idea:
So that got me to thinking, is there a not so clever way for me to get
a summary of potentially missing .so symlinks for a fully installed
fc3 system so we can get these reported in one big push. So i did
myself a full install, ran ldconfig and captured the output of
ldconfig -p. I then parsed the output of ldconfig -p  using a drop
dead stupid shell script to get a list of candidate missing .so
symlinks file locations based on the existance of .so.* in the same
directory and compared that list to rpmdb-fedora to doublecheck those
specific file locations were not in an available core package.

The result:
I have a list of 49 POTENTIALLY missing .so files from the fc3 package
set.  I stress potential because i know this was a very un-clever way
to approach this, and I'm sure there are several special case
situations that I'm misflagging with my script. For example, anything
like libick-X.Y.so.Z will flags libick-X.Y.so as missing even if
libick.so is there even though its not really a problem in most
circumstances.

But my goal was just to get the list down to something small enough to
be human reviewable in a reasonable amount of time. Che has already
gone over the list once, it was originally 78 or so potentially
missing files. I'm sure there are false alarms in the list, but there
are also some files that apear to both che and myself to be missing
and filable as packaging bugs. There might be situations where the .so
was delibrately left out that we are not aware of so I don't want to
jump the gun and file bug reports without more review. For example
libgnomebt.so and libgnome-window-settings.so jump out to me as real
package errors if they were not delibrately left out.

So please take a look at the list of potentially missing .so files
below and comment on specific files that you think are definitely
missing because of a packaging problem that impacts the ability to
build and link the dynamic library.  This was from a complete fc3
install, I haven't had a chance to do this with a full rawhide install
yet.

-jef

ld-linux.so
libamu.so
libblkid.so
libboost_date_time.so
libboost_filesystem.so
libboost_prg_exec_monitor.so
libboost_python.so
libboost_regex.so
libboost_signals.so
libboost_test_exec_monitor.so
libboost_thread.so
libboost_unit_test_framework.so
libc.so
libdw.so
libFS.so
libg2c.so
libgcc_s.so
libgcj.so
libgfortranpreview.so
libGLw.so
libgmodule-1.2.so
libgnarl-3.4.so
libgnat-3.4.so
libgnomebt.so
libgnome-window-settings.so
lib-gnu-java-awt-peer-gtk.so
libgthread-1.2.so
libhpojip.so
liblber-2.2.so
liblber.so
libldap-2.2.so
libldap_r-2.2.so
libldap_r.so
libmDNSResponder-0.9.6.so
libNoVersion.so
libnss_db.so
libnuma.so
libobjc.so
lib-org-w3c-dom.so
lib-org-xml-sax.so
libparted-1.6.so
libptal.so
libpthread.so
libpwdb.so
libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so
libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so
libstdc++.so
libsvn_swig_perl-1.so
libsvn_swig_py-1.so


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]