rpmlint warnings...

[Nathanael D. Noblet]

On 11/15/2009 02:30 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 21:59, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
>> Hello,
>>    So I recently posted my first package and the review. While I waited I started cleaning up more issues I found after I realized you could run rpmlint on the actual rpm and not just the spec file. I'd like the review to go as quickly as possible so I'm just trying to get all those warnings cleaned up.
>>
>>    My package has a number of sub packages for various backend drivers. These subpackages basically contain a .so file for the most part however I'm getting rpmlint messages as follows
>>
>> libdspam.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libdspam.so
>>
>> how is libdspam.so determined to be a devel file?
>
> Shared objects (libraries) residing in %{_libdir} usually have names like
> libfoo.so.X.Y.Z where X.Y.Z is their ABI version number. -devel subpackages
> contain libfoo.so which is usually a link to libfoo.X.Y.Z and is used for
> linking against libfoo (-lfoo in linker command line).
>
>> libdspam.so.7.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
>>
>> Is what I get back from file. What is it that I'm missing?
>
> Judging by the above, your libdspam.so should in fact be named
> libdspam.so.7.0.0.

[gnat at iridium ~]$ ls -l /usr/lib64/libdspam.*
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 175812 2009-11-15 13:54 /usr/lib64/libdspam.a
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root    954 2009-11-15 13:54 /usr/lib64/libdspam.la
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 2009-11-15 13:59 /usr/lib64/libdspam.so 
-> libdspam.so.7.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     17 2009-11-15 13:59 /usr/lib64/libdspam.so.7 
-> libdspam.so.7.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 111000 2009-11-15 13:54 /usr/lib64/libdspam.so.7.0.0


[gnat at iridium ~]$ ldd /usr/bin/dspam_2sql
	linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fffccfda000)
==>	libdspam.so.7 => /usr/lib64/libdspam.so.7 (0x00007f7f4d89e000)
	libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x000000335a400000)
	libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x000000335a800000)
	libldap-2.4.so.2 => /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x00007f7f4d659000)
	liblber-2.4.so.2 => /usr/lib64/liblber-2.4.so.2 (0x0000003362000000)
	libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x000000335ac00000)
	libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x000000335a000000)
	/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003359c00000)
	libresolv.so.2 => /lib64/libresolv.so.2 (0x000000335d000000)
	libsasl2.so.2 => /usr/lib64/libsasl2.so.2 (0x00007f7f4d43d000)
	libssl.so.10 => /usr/lib64/libssl.so.10 (0x0000003368000000)
	libcrypto.so.10 => /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10 (0x0000003366000000)
	libcrypt.so.1 => /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 (0x00007f7f4d205000)
	libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /lib64/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x0000003367000000)
	libkrb5.so.3 => /lib64/libkrb5.so.3 (0x0000003366c00000)
	libcom_err.so.2 => /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 (0x0000003365c00000)
	libk5crypto.so.3 => /lib64/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x0000003367400000)
	libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x000000335b000000)
	libfreebl3.so => /usr/lib64/libfreebl3.so (0x00007f7f4cfa4000)
	libkrb5support.so.0 => /lib64/libkrb5support.so.0 (0x0000003366800000)
	libkeyutils.so.1 => /lib64/libkeyutils.so.1 (0x0000003367800000)
	libselinux.so.1 => /lib64/libselinux.so.1 (0x000000335bc00000)


It seems to me then that libdspam.so.7.0.0 is the actual file, and I 
have libdspam.so and libdspam.so.7 as symlinks. Based off the ldd of 
some of the binaries I can see that it is linked to x.so.VER for most 
libraries...

So does that mean that my libdspam.so.7.0.0 and libdspam.so.7 are in the 
one package and then libdspam.a/la/so are part of -devel ?

Would that be the correct assumption?

Thanks for the tips so far.
--
Nathanael D. Noblet