After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 725689 - libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning
libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: tracker
Classification: Core
Component: General
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Martyn Russell
: 726963 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-03-04 21:39 UTC by Dominique Leuenberger
Modified: 2014-03-24 12:44 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning (808 bytes, patch)
2014-03-04 21:39 UTC, Dominique Leuenberger
none Details | Review
libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning (822 bytes, patch)
2014-03-04 21:59 UTC, Dominique Leuenberger
none Details | Review
Addon patch: do the same for libtracker-common and libtracker-data (1.32 KB, patch)
2014-03-04 22:09 UTC, Dominique Leuenberger
none Details | Review
Patches merged (1.83 KB, patch)
2014-03-04 23:07 UTC, Dominique Leuenberger
none Details | Review
Updated patch to avoid build warnings (2.03 KB, patch)
2014-03-17 16:08 UTC, Martyn Russell
none Details | Review

Description Dominique Leuenberger 2014-03-04 21:39:49 UTC
Maintaining the LT versions for a private library is useless.
Comment 1 Dominique Leuenberger 2014-03-04 21:39:51 UTC
Created attachment 270950 [details] [review]
libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning

As a private library, there is no reason to maintain LT versioning.
Comment 2 Dominique Leuenberger 2014-03-04 21:59:36 UTC
Created attachment 270952 [details] [review]
libtracker-extract: no longer use libtool versioning

As a private library, there is no reason to maintain LT versioning.
Comment 3 Dominique Leuenberger 2014-03-04 22:09:10 UTC
Created attachment 270953 [details] [review]
Addon patch: do the same for libtracker-common and libtracker-data
Comment 4 Michael Biebl 2014-03-04 23:03:12 UTC
Looks good to me. I would just merge the two separate patches into a single one. It's cleaner this way.
Comment 5 Dominique Leuenberger 2014-03-04 23:07:34 UTC
Created attachment 270956 [details] [review]
Patches merged

Sure; merging makes sense...

this was originally reported 'just' for the newly private library... and discussed on IRC; and the two additional libs common and data were noted to be equally affected.
Comment 6 Michael Biebl 2014-03-05 00:00:48 UTC
So, I've test-built the Debian package with this patch, and now I'm getting loads of those warnings:

dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name 'libtracker-common.so'
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name 'libtracker-extract.so'
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name 'libtracker-data.so'

Typically, -avoid-version is used for dlopen'ed libraries, but in case of tracker they are linked like regular system libraries (that's why the RPATH) is necessary.

Maybe it's better to not use -avoid-version but not explicitly set -version-info, i.e. use the default, which is 0.0.0
Comment 7 Michael Biebl 2014-03-05 00:22:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> So, I've test-built the Debian package with this patch, and now I'm getting
> loads of those warnings:
> 
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name
> 'libtracker-common.so'
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name
> 'libtracker-extract.so'
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name
> 'libtracker-data.so'


To be specific, with this patch I get 448 of those warning messages during a single package build.
Comment 8 Martyn Russell 2014-03-17 16:08:03 UTC
Created attachment 272180 [details] [review]
Updated patch to avoid build warnings

Hi guys, So I think what we want is this patch. Michael, can you confirm this works for you?

Stable releases are coming up and I would like to have this in ASAP, thanks :)
Comment 9 Michael Biebl 2014-03-17 16:13:02 UTC
Hi Martin,

after some consideration, I'd like to keep the status quo.
It doesn't really fix any issue and is mostly of cosmetic nature. And it makes the Debian build process drown in error messages, making it harder to spot real issues/errors.
Comment 10 Michael Biebl 2014-03-17 16:13:56 UTC
It = this patch
Comment 11 Martyn Russell 2014-03-17 16:38:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hi Martin,
> 
> after some consideration, I'd like to keep the status quo.
> It doesn't really fix any issue and is mostly of cosmetic nature. And it makes
> the Debian build process drown in error messages, making it harder to spot real
> issues/errors.

Ah ok, I thought my newer patch would remove the warnings/errors you're seeing?
If it doesn't I agree with you.
Comment 12 Michael Biebl 2014-03-17 16:41:57 UTC
Oh, sorry. Completely missed your updated patch.
Yeah, that one would be ok from my POV
Comment 13 Martyn Russell 2014-03-17 16:46:49 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> Oh, sorry. Completely missed your updated patch.
> Yeah, that one would be ok from my POV

OK, want to test or should I just push the commit?
Comment 14 Michael Biebl 2014-03-17 16:56:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Oh, sorry. Completely missed your updated patch.
> > Yeah, that one would be ok from my POV
> 
> OK, want to test or should I just push the commit?

I'm pretty sure your patch won't trigger the warnings. So, should be fine.
Comment 15 Debarshi Ray 2014-03-24 12:44:19 UTC
*** Bug 726963 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***