Re: [DynInst_API:] Improving dyninst rpm packaging

[Matthew LeGendre <legendre1@xxxxxxxx>]

Will,

Thanks for the patches.  The notests patch is trivially correct.  The 
versioning patch is more complicated and will need review, but the ideas 
are right.
-Matt

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, William Cohen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have gotten back to the dyninst packaging for rpm.  I have been using 
> the dyninst/dyninst_proccontrol branch. One of the things that occurred 
> during the build was that it would attempt build all the tests. This is 
> undesired because it requires many other packages and greatly slows the 
> build.  I am not sure that the the attached dyninst-notest.patch is the 
> best way to address this, but it eliminates the undesired build of the 
> tests.
> The resulting dyninst rpms were not installable because all the linking 
> is done with unversioned shared libaries (libcommon.so) then later the 
> library names are changed in the install to versions names 
> (libcommon.so.8.0). The rpmbuild process goes through and looks for 
> implicit library dependencies using ldd 
> (http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-depend-auto-depend.html), and finds 
> that the libraries use the unversioned names rather than the versioned 
> names.  The dyninst-vers.patch is an attempt to make the linker get the 
> correct versions of the libraries. dyninst builds, but the resulting 
> rpms do not install because of the library versioning issue.
> There is a scratch build of an proccontrol git branch and these patches 
> at:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4159913
>
> -Will