[lug] rpm spec: ldconfig-symlink

[David L. Anselmi]

D. Stimits wrote:
[...]
> ldconfig does have an option to create sym links. It appears it sym 
> links the physical/real file name to the soname. I can't find how this 
> differs from ln -s, except that (a) it might be safer than loading ln in 
> a script, and (b) it automatically chooses the soname.

I didn't use any options.  It made symlinks.  Another difference from ln 
-s is that ldconfig updates the library cache the loader uses.

> ldconfig -l does indeed do fewer sym links, and without the -l, it does 
> not make any sym links.

That wasn't my experience, I didn't use -l.

> If rpmlint would accept the sym links, I would 
> be ok with this, but it doesn't. I have a properly built and linked 
> dynamic library (even the rpmlint documentation seems to think I used 
> the right options), but regardless of how I do it, rpmlint claims:
> <quote>
>  > rpmlint -i libMyLib-0.0.0-1.i386.rpm
> E: libMyLib no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libMyLib.so.0.0.0
> The package should not only include the shared library itself, but
> also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is
> necessary, so that the link gets removed by dpkg automatically when
> the package gets removed.)  If the symlink is in the package, check
> that the SONAME of the library matches the info in the shlibs
> file.
> </quote>

Do you run rpmlint on the SRPM or the RPM?  Interesting that it tells 
you that dpkg removes links.

By any chance have you looked at anyone else's SRPMs?  I looked at this one:

ftp://rpmfind.net/linux/fedora/core/4/SRPMS/tcp_wrappers-7.6-39.src.rpm

and it only seems to use ldconfig for links.  I'm not that smart about 
how libwrap.so.0.7.6 gets built though.  What does rpmlint say on this 
package?

HTH,
Dave