| Summary: | Add libseccomp-static as it's needed to build snapd | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | Kristoffer Grundström <lovaren> |
| Component: | New RPM package request | Assignee: | Mageia Bug Squad <bugsquad> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | lovaren |
| Version: | 7 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Source RPM: | libseccomp | CVE: | |
| Status comment: | |||
| Attachments: | Proposal spec file to build libseccomp with a static rpm | ||
|
Description
Kristoffer Grundström
2020-12-14 22:58:39 CET
Created attachment 12080 [details]
Proposal spec file to build libseccomp with a static rpmCC:
(none) =>
lovaren The installation of said package will fail with this error: Installation failed: file /usr/lib64/libseccomp.so.2 from the installation of libseccomp-2.5.1-1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lib64seccomp2-2.5.0-1.mga7.x86_64 I honestly don't know how to solve that. We've managed to build snapd without it (no we won't be providing it), so it's obviously not needed. In general for the most part, we don't provide static libraries. Resolution:
(none) =>
INVALID Forgive me for saying this, but https://pkgs.org/download/snapd shows no snapd for Mageia. If you take a look at the Fedora version they seem to need libseccomp-static to build snapd. How come our approach is different from their way with the same package if we both use RPM? Even CentOS uses libseccomp-static to build it. We are not Fedora/CentOS. I already said that we won't be providing the snapd package that we had built. |