[Bug 176617] Review Request: libupnp

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libupnp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176617





------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net  2006-01-06 19:15 EST -------
> About the soname problems with libupnp, libixml and libthreadutil,
> what can i do against that ??

Not much unless you convince the upstream authors to introduce a
library version. There exist other libraries with the same soname
problem.

> doesn't build with default RPM opt flags : what do you mean by this ?
> It compiles fine here.

I see compiler flags like this during build:

gcc -Wall -I./ -I../inc -I../../pil/inc -fPIC -c -Wall -Os -DNDEBUG -I. -I../inc
 -Iinc -c ixml.c -o obj/ixml.o

It doesn't use Fedora's default compiler flags during compilation.
These are defined within the rpmbuild configuration, see e.g. output of,

  rpm --eval '%optflags'

and are exported automatically in the %build section of an RPM package
spec file when using the %configure macro. Where you don't use the
%configure macro, you can work with the %optflags macro or with the
${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} variable in a spec file and pass a modified CFLAGS
environment variable to "make" (or other variables for other programming
languages). It may be necessary to patch the source code Makefiles in
order to drop hardcoded compiler/linker flags and make them accept
external optflags instead.

> must not strip the libraries, since that disables the debuginfo
> package : What do you mean and how to solve it ?

After compiling/linking the libraries, the Makefiles must not run
"strip" on them. If they do, rpmbuild's internal means of extracting
debug information for a "-debuginfo" sub-package are disabled.

> ldconfig creates an unowned link libupnp.so to the versioned
> library - this makes the version completely useless! : How to
> solve this ?

First of all, you would need to specify %{_libdir}/libupnp.so in
your %files section and create the link in your %install section,
so RPM knows that the link belongs into your package.  That would
fix one part if the problem. The other part is the soname
versioning problem as explained before.

> -devel subpackage is missing /usr/include/upnp directory : i have
> this directory in devel package. What is the problem ?

You don't include the _directory_ in the devel package. You only include
the files inside the directory. Query "rpm -qlv libupnp-devel". Take
your pick. Either patch as following would work and would also include
the directory (the latter one includes the directory and its contents
recursively):

--- libupnp.spec.orig   2006-01-05 19:12:15.000000000 +0100
+++ libupnp.spec        2006-01-07 01:12:01.000000000 +0100
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
 
 %files devel
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%dir %{_includedir}/upnp
 %{_includedir}/upnp/*
 
 %clean


--- libupnp.spec.orig   2006-01-05 19:12:15.000000000 +0100
+++ libupnp.spec        2006-01-07 01:13:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
 
 %files devel
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%{_includedir}/upnp/*
+%{_includedir}/upnp/
 
 %clean
 rm -rf %{buildroot}


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.