fabiand on IRC let me know that there's a minor change that could be made to the Beware of RPath section of the Guidelines to make things easier for packagers:
[10:23:07] <fabiand> regarding an wiki page i can not edit: packaging:guidelines#beware_of_rpath [10:23:57] <fabiand> it should be recommended to use %{_arch} not using 32 or 64 as a suffix for files in /etc/ld.so.conf, because it is easy to use %{a_arch} but not easy to get 64 or 32
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
It would change this: {{{ If you are storing a library in a non-standard location (e.g. /usr/lib/foo/), you should include a custom config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/. For example, if I was putting 32 bit libraries of libfoo in /usr/lib/foo, I would want to make a file called "foo32.conf" in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, which contained the following:
/usr/lib/foo
Make sure that you also make a 64bit version of this file (e.g. foo64.conf) as well (unless the package is disabled for 64bit architectures, of course). }}}
To this:: {{{ If you are storing a library in a non-standard location (e.g. %{_libdir}/foo/), you should include a custom config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/. For example, if I was putting 32 bit libraries of libfoo in /usr/lib/foo and 64 bit libraries in /usr/lib64/foo I would want to make a file called "foo%{_arch}.conf" in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/, which contained the following on 32 bit:
/usr/lib/foo
and on 64 bit: /usr/lib64/foo
That could be done in the specfile with echo %{_libdir}/foo > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/foo%{_arch}.conf }}}
If this looks like a good change I'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
-Toshio
On 10/03/2009 01:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
fabiand on IRC let me know that there's a minor change that could be made to the Beware of RPath section of the Guidelines to make things easier for packagers:
[10:23:07] <fabiand> regarding an wiki page i can not edit: packaging:guidelines#beware_of_rpath [10:23:57] <fabiand> it should be recommended to use %{_arch} not using 32 or 64 as a suffix for files in /etc/ld.so.conf, because it is easy to use %{a_arch} but not easy to get 64 or 32
That's not true. %{__isa_bits} will return either 32 or 64, depending on the platform arch.
~spot
On 10/05/2009 05:58 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 10/03/2009 01:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
fabiand on IRC let me know that there's a minor change that could be made to the Beware of RPath section of the Guidelines to make things easier for packagers:
[10:23:07] <fabiand> regarding an wiki page i can not edit: packaging:guidelines#beware_of_rpath [10:23:57] <fabiand> it should be recommended to use %{_arch} not using 32 or 64 as a suffix for files in /etc/ld.so.conf, because it is easy to use %{a_arch} but not easy to get 64 or 32
That's not true. %{__isa_bits} will return either 32 or 64, depending on the platform arch.
%{__isa_bits} requires a relatively recent rpm, though? I didn't find it EL-5's rpm --showrc but did in F-11's.
-Toshio
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com wrote:
fabiand on IRC let me know that there's a minor change that could be made to the Beware of RPath section of the Guidelines to make things easier for packagers:
[10:23:07] <fabiand> regarding an wiki page i can not edit: packaging:guidelines#beware_of_rpath [10:23:57] <fabiand> it should be recommended to use %{_arch} not using 32 or 64 as a suffix for files in /etc/ld.so.conf, because it is easy to use %{a_arch} but not easy to get 64 or 32
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
Just read the above link, can someone explain "we do not permit the use of rpath in Fedora" in the context of libperl.so?
I had been using 'chrpath --delete' for my package (pacemaker) but was forced to drop it because the binaries couldn't find the perl shared lib. If Perl has some sort of exception then ideally it should be mentioned on that page.
-- Andrew
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org