https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504
--- Comment #23 from Jun Aruga <jaruga(a)redhat.com> ---
Hi Dave,
I updated the spec file and SRPM file for below URLs.
I confess I ignore those. I'm not at all sure it's sensible
as a
general stipulation.
I just keep it in my mind at the moment. It's not an error from rpmlint, but
warning.
Ah. That probably merits a bug report.
Sure. I sent email to legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org to ask the question about
how to set Expat license. It looks Expat license is MIT license. Then someone
replied Expat was same with MIT.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o...
It's simply wrong. .so.1.9 and .so.2 imply incompatible ABIs.
...
so you probably don't want to follow it.
I simply did not understand it well. This is my first experience for RPM
packaging of "foolib".
I like to follow Fedora's rule as much as possible.
I defined `%global so_version 0.1` to use it like libhts.so.0.1
I also opened the ticket to ask it on upstream.
https://github.com/samtools/htslib/issues/932
Also, the advice is to glob man pages in %files
done
-fPIC is redundant in CFLAGS as it comes from the compiler specs.
done
You should also set LDFLAGS to %build_ldflags or similar.
done
What I want to ask you is when I install the binary RPM
htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm, `/usr/lib64/libhts.so.2` is installed. I do not
know why.
```
$ mock -i htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
<mock-chroot> sh-5.0# ls /usr/lib64/libhts*
/usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2
<mock-chroot> sh-5.0# rpm -ql /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2
package /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 is not installed
```
I ran `rm -f libhts.so.2` in %install section, also had to set `%exclude
%{_libdir}/libhts.so.2` in %files.
And I also below error from rpmlint might be related to this issue.
```
htslib.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1
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 rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if
for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.)
```
Do you know why?
Here is the scratch build.
Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37811950
Thank you for your patience.
I am learning a lot from this reviewing process.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component