Request 944872 (accepted)

You're not reviewing the full diff of request 944872 , but the diff to the superseded request 944731 (Show full diff)

Overview

Request 944872 accepted

- Fix the -devel dangling symlink by moving to libPDAL
libpdal_*.so.%{soname} symlinks to libpdal_*.%{sovers}
rpmlint not more complain.
- Review licenses of subpart: The code is licensed BSD except for:
+ filters/private/csf/* and plugins/i3s/lepcc/* are Apache-2.0
+ vendor/arbiter/*, plugins/nitf/io/nitflib.h and plugins/oci/io/OciWrapper.* are Expat/MIT
+ plugins/e57/io/{src,include}/* is BSD-3-Clause
+ plugins/e57/libE57Format/{src,include}/* is Boost 1-0
- Create a patch PDAL_unbundle.patch to sort out eigen3 and boost
+ Eigen3 system now used fixing boo#1194109
- Fixing boo#1194109 ppc64le build by disabling lto until upstream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059 is fixed
- Add Provides for
+ bundled(arbiter)
+ bundled(PoissonRecon)
+ bundled(nanoflann)
+ bundled(nlohmann)
- Add %check section following what's Fedora is doing
+ Add upstream patch for testing 32bits d11e0e20.patch
- Update to 2.3.0 version
complete description https://github.com/PDAL/PDAL/releases/tag/2.3.0

Created by bruno_friedmann almost 3 years ago
In state accepted
Supersedes 944731

Submit PDAL

Comments for request 944872 0
Comments for request 944731 5

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - almost 3 years ago

reviewer

 59+Provides:       lib%{lname}_base.so.%{soname} = %{version}
 60+Provides:       lib%{name}%{soname} = %{version}

the first one is useless: fix the requires in the devel package to require the library by name, not by .so. whatever... this is never done, and should not be done here neither
the 2nd one is useless, as it's the name of the package, so this is implicit

Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) - almost 3 years ago

author source maintainer

Thanks for your comment, I will try to apply those advise to my best.

Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) - almost 3 years ago

author source maintainer

But I've hard time to understand and fix between your explanations and the result of rpmlint

[ 351s] PDAL-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-for /usr/lib64/libpdal_base.so.13 [ 351s] The package misses dependency on a library package that provides the shared [ 351s] library.

When just a few line before libPDAL13 give those results [ 312s] Provides: libPDAL13 = 2.3.0-0 libPDAL13(x86-64) = 2.3.0-0 libpdal_base.so.13()(64bit) libpdal_plugin_kernel_fauxplugin.so.13()(64bit) libpdal_plugin_reader_pgpointcloud.so.13()(64bit) libpdal_plugin_writer_pgpointcloud.so.13()(64bit) libpdal_util.so.13()(64bit)

There's something (certainly evident) that I'm missing or understanding wrongly.

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - almost 3 years ago

reviewer

If I get this right (purely based on the things seen in logs):

PDAL-devel Requires libPDAL13 (which seem ok)

The problem seems to be that libPDAL13 only packages a /usr/lib64/libpdal_base.so.13.0.0 - the -devel project's symlink points to .so.13 though - i.e. it's a dangling symlink according to the package metadata

Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) - almost 3 years ago

author source maintainer

Ok I start to see, in fact in -devel I put libpdal_base.so a symlink to ./libpdal_base.so.13 which is also a link packaged into -devel and this link point to the final libpdal_base.so.13.0.0 (in libPDAL).

Should I put then libpdal_base.so.13 into libPDAL13 ?