Bug #38611
building libcrc32
% Done:
0%
Description
For reasons I don't have time to dig into and figure out, some builds of nautilus in Fedora have produced a libcrc32.so, while others have produced a libcrc32.a. And then things like librados2.so and others are linked with it.
When libcrc32.so is built, it's not included in the RPM and a dependency on, e.g. the librados2 RPM, is derived, with the result that an install/update fails because there is nothing that provides libcrc32.so.
Forcing libcrc32 to be a STATIC library appears to work, e.g. with the attached patch.
Related issues
History
#1 Updated by Brad Hubbard about 5 years ago
- Category set to build
- Source set to Development
#2 Updated by chris denice over 3 years ago
Same bug encountered with ceph v15.2.4
#3 Updated by Kefu Chai about 3 years ago
- Duplicated by Bug #49080: packages fail to install on Fedora 34/rawhide due to missing shared lib libblk.so added
#4 Updated by Kefu Chai about 3 years ago
- Status changed from New to Fix Under Review
- Assignee set to Kefu Chai
- Backport set to nautilus, octopus, pacific
- Pull request ID set to 39566
#5 Updated by Sage Weil about 3 years ago
- Status changed from Fix Under Review to Pending Backport
#6 Updated by Backport Bot about 3 years ago
- Copied to Backport #49376: nautilus: building libcrc32 added
#7 Updated by Backport Bot about 3 years ago
- Copied to Backport #49377: pacific: building libcrc32 added
#8 Updated by Backport Bot about 3 years ago
- Copied to Backport #49378: octopus: building libcrc32 added
#9 Updated by Loïc Dachary over 2 years ago
- Status changed from Pending Backport to Resolved
While running with --resolve-parent, the script "backport-create-issue" noticed that all backports of this issue are in status "Resolved" or "Rejected".