[packagers] Shared libraries in RPMforge packages...

Morten Kjeldgaard mok at bioxray.dk
Tue May 15 17:27:17 CEST 2007


Hi friends,

I want to point you attention to the way shared libraries are being 
packaged in RPMforge. I think it is necessary to rethink the policy (if 
there is one ;-) ). The problem is illustrated by the following example:

A few days ago, there was an update to the openexr package, which was 
version 1.3 before, and is 1.4 now. The new package of course wants to 
upgrade the older package, since 1.4 > 1.3. The NEW package contains:
/usr/bin/exrdisplay
... and more programs...
/usr/lib/libHalf.so.4
/usr/lib/libHalf.so.4.0.0
/usr/lib/libIex.so.4
... and more shared libraries...
/usr/share/doc/openexr-1.4.0a
... etc.

The OLD package contains:
/usr/bin/exrdisplay
...
/usr/lib/libHalf.so.3
/usr/lib/libHalf.so.3.0.0
/usr/lib/libIex.so.3
/usr/lib/libIex.so.3.0.0
... etc...
/usr/share/doc/openexr-1.3.0

When the NEW package replaces the OLD package, it wants to remove the 
shared libraries version 3. However, I have a bunch of (local) packages 
installed that depend on the OLD shared libraries, and apt-get therefore 
wants to uninstall those.

This behaviour is not desirable, and is a packaging bug IMHO. The 
openexr package -- and probably others -- need to split into several 
subpackages. There is no reason that /usr/lib/libHalf.so.3 and 
/usr/lib/libHalf.so.4 could not live next to each other (in the old and 
new packages resp.). But this requires that the files that clash -- (in 
this case the binaries) must be in their own package.

The solution to the problem is the following:
When the major number of a shared library changes, it is necessary to 
change the name of the package. The obvious choice is to append the 
major .so number to the package name, i.e. openexr4. You need to have 3 
packages for this to work: one with programs (openexr4), one with shared 
libraries (openexr4-libs) and one with header files and some of the 
libraries (openexr4-devel).

The binaries package (openexr4) depends on openexr4-libs, and replaces 
the binaries in the old package (openexr3). Thus, in the upgrade, 
openexr4 will pull in openexr4-libs. However,  openexr3-libs will be 
allowed to remain on the system, like it should if other programs or 
packages depend on it.

Programs that need to use the openexr4 libraries, need to contain the lines
BuildRequires: openexr4-devel
Requires: openexr4-libs
in the spec file. But openexr4-devel need to be able to coexist with 
openexr3-devel, so their header files need to be in separate directories 
(for example /usr/include/openexr3/ etc.). I may still wish to be able 
to compile programs that need openexr3-devel to compile. And the 
libraries will still be there, since openexr3-devel depends on 
openexr3-libs.

We have to assume that people:
1) Can have locally built binaries that depend on shared libraries. 
These should not disappear overnight without a warning since it may 
break the locally compiled software.
2) Can have locally built RPMs that rely on certain shared libraries.
3) May still want to develop programs using the old version headers and 
link to old libraries, so the development environment should coexist 
with programs using the new version.

This is in fact another variation of the infamous fftw discussion that 
we have been having ad nauseam (thanks to yours truly ;-)). Fedora and 
friends like to keep the generic name for the new package and provide a 
*-compat package containing the old stuff. I intensely dislike that 
approach; a package with a certain software version should never be 
renamed. In the fftw case, RPMforge correctly bumped the package number 
to fftw3 (but Fedora didn't).

I propose that RPMforge et. al. adopt a policy along the lines sketched 
out in the above, so men and fish can coexist peacefully.

Cheers,
Morten

-- 
Morten Kjeldgaard, Asc. professor, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biology, Aarhus University
Gustav Wieds Vej 10 C, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Lab +45 89425026 * Mobile +45 51860147 * Fax +45 86123178
Home +45 86188180 * http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok




More information about the packagers mailing list