rpm AutoRequires/AutoProvides and dsos not in linker path, do we care ?

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> So, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502226 was logged a
> while ago against OOo for the rpms "improperly" providing and
> requiring .sos that are not in the linker path, but instead in OOo's own
> subdirs.
>
> a) do we care ?

Yes I care.  I ran into somthing similar for perl modules.  Packages 
shouldn't provide 'perl(foo)' unless those modules are in perl's 
default module path.  It clearly breaks programs when a perl module in 
a private directory satisfies an rpm dependency for another package.

> b) if we care do we want to 
> b.1) make every package that has some shared libraries in it that are
> not in the default linker path make manual filters to exclude the
> provides/requires ? (oh, the pain)

That is what I had to do in the case of a perl program I'm packaging.  
There are even Fedora guidelines on how to do this for perl.

> b.2) extend the autorequires/autoprovides in some (handwaves) way to
> better indicate the desired match

I like this idea better.  AutoReq/Prov should only search system-wide 
deafult search paths for .so's, perl modules, and any other such 
objects that it supports.