On Jan 6, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Mykel Alvis wrote:
> I think it's OK to do this, but I'm going to do so directly to your personal email so that I don't display piles of potentially litigious data in a public forum.
Please reply with readelf output publically: the output is not that large if you
grep out only the "SONAME" (i.e. the Provides:) and the "NEEDED" (i.e the
Requires:) for a couple of libraries and executables.
There are also specific options to display exactly DT_SONAME/DT_NEEDED
if you wish to read "man readelf": I deliberately gave you the easier to understand
readelf -a ... | grep SONAME
as something that an average RPM packager faced with a similar problem using
Google search might find useful, comprehensible, and perhaps easier to remember. YMMV.
Most users with RPM problems now use Google search first, you included.
This leads to a preponderance of problem (but not solution) reports.
For something like RPM w >15y of serachable information, searching can and will find
just about every answer you want to hear, with many answers that implictly/contextually
appropriate and generally foolish. If one is smart enough, one can sometimes find the "best"
solution. But generally, the deluge of possibile answers and "No time!" precludes "best"
or even "thoughtful".
Yes I respond to requests out of "good will", formerly out of some misplaced sense of duty
and obligation to assist with information on software I wrote and happen to know quite well.
The specific parts of your problem that have only to do with RPM are the metadata in
*.rpm package headers. The parts of this problem that I cannot help directly with are
what the packages are used for, how the software is to be built, how to setup yum repositories,
and why yum on RHEL (more likely CentOS) is reporting a dependency failure. The
other issues are implicitly related to the (non-)existence of metadata, as well as coupled
into the root causes for your specific issue, and cannot be ignored (or solved by RPM).
73 de Jeff
Received on Sun Jan 6 21:49:06 2013