Hello list,
I got an interresting report regarging SDL library file names
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962702>.
If you install SDL and SDL-devel, you will get these files:
root@fedora-20:~ # ls -o /usr/lib64/libSDL*
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root 20 Jul 1 10:43 /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0 ->
libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root 444176 Jun 19 12:58 /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root 20 Jul 1 10:55 /usr/lib64/libSDL.so ->
libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4
root@fedora-20:~ # scanelf --soname /usr/lib64/libSDL*
TYPE SONAME FILE
ET_DYN libSDL-1.2.so.0 /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0
ET_DYN libSDL-1.2.so.0 /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4
ET_DYN libSDL-1.2.so.0 /usr/lib64/libSDL.so
You can see the symlink for compile-time linking is called libSDL.so
despite the SONAME is libsSDL-1.2.so.0, so the expected file name should
be libSDL-1.2.so.
And that's probably the reason why ldconfig gets confused and wants to
change libSDL-1.2.so.0 symlink from libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4 to libSDL.so:
root@fedora-20:~ # ldconfig -v |grep SDL
ldconfig: Can't stat /libx32: No such file or directory
ldconfig: Path `/usr/lib' given more than once
ldconfig: Path `/usr/lib64' given more than once
ldconfig: Can't stat /usr/libx32: No such file or directory
libSDL-1.2.so.0 -> libSDL.so
If I remove the libSDL.so, then ldconfig leaves this silly idea and
returns to expected value (libSDL-1.2.so.0 -> libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4).
Is this is a bug or a feature of ldconfig?
Is the installed libSDL.so symlink a mistage in the SDL-devel package?
Is renaming libSDL.so to libSDL-1.2.so wise? The libSDL.so is used in
upstream and other distributions.
Is adding the libSDL-1.2.so symlink (and preserving libSDL.so) for
backward compatibility wise?
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
