Bug 5339

Summary: libbzip2_1 is missing a link
Product: Mageia Reporter: jon scsi <scsijon>
Component: RPM PackagesAssignee: Thomas Backlund <tmb>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: Normal CC: rverschelde
Version: CauldronKeywords: Junior_job, Triaged
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: i586   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: MGA2TOO
Source RPM: bzip2 CVE:
Status comment:

Description jon scsi 2012-04-10 23:53:27 CEST
Description of problem:
libbz2.so.1.0 link is missing in this package

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libbzip2_1-1.0.6-1.mga2.i586.rpm
Comment 1 Manuel Hiebel 2012-04-11 00:40:01 CEST
Hi, thanks for reporting this bug.
Assigned to the package maintainer.

(Please set the status to 'assigned' if you are working on it)

Keywords: (none) => Triaged
Assignee: bugsquad => tmb
Summary: package is missing a link => libbzip2_1 is missing a link
Source RPM: libbzip2_1-1.0.6-1.mga2.i586.rpm => bzip2

Comment 2 jon scsi 2012-04-27 04:29:23 CEST
should this not be fixed for RC?
Comment 3 Marja Van Waes 2012-05-26 13:04:52 CEST
Hi,

This bug was filed against cauldron, but we do not have cauldron at the moment.

Please report whether this bug is still valid for Mageia 2.

Thanks :)

Cheers,
marja

Keywords: (none) => NEEDINFO

Comment 4 jon scsi 2012-05-30 13:21:48 CEST
Yes please Marja, if it hasn't already been done, I thought it had been assigned to the particular package maintainer for remedial action.

The missing lib is used by mageia1, so should have been included to stop errors appearing from there when installing their packages as well as by quite a number of external rpm package sources and therefore is needed to install and run them without errors.

regards
scsijon
ps I shall look at my others over the next week as I'm not very well at present, which is why I stopped testing at the rc stage
Manuel Hiebel 2012-05-30 19:17:10 CEST

Keywords: NEEDINFO => (none)
Whiteboard: (none) => MGA2TOO

Manuel Hiebel 2012-05-30 19:18:09 CEST

Keywords: (none) => Junior_job

Comment 5 Marja Van Waes 2012-07-06 15:05:48 CEST
Please look at the bottom of this mail to see whether you're the assignee of this  bug, if you don't already know whether you are.


If you're the assignee:

We'd like to know for sure whether this bug was assigned correctly. Please change status to ASSIGNED if it is, or put OK on the whiteboard instead.

If you don't have a clue and don't see a way to find out, then please put NEEDHELP on the whiteboard.

Please assign back to Bug Squad or to the correct person to solve this bug if we were wrong to assign it to you, and explain why.

Thanks :)

**************************** 

@ the reporter and persons in the cc of this bug:

If you have any new information that wasn't given before (like this bug being valid for another version of Mageia, too, or it being solved) please tell us.

@ the reporter of this bug

If you didn't reply yet to a request for more information, please do so within two weeks from now.

Thanks all :-D
Comment 6 jon scsi 2012-07-09 08:27:49 CEST
simple fix, was wrong in mageia 2 cauldron, was assigned to maintainer, if not fixed is still wrong.
Comment 7 Rémi Verschelde 2013-11-24 11:18:20 CET
What's the status on this bug? Was it fixed, is there still a bug in Cauldron?

CC: (none) => remi

Comment 8 Samuel Verschelde 2015-04-23 14:12:19 CEST
Closing as OLD since no answer has been given to comment #7

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => OLD

Comment 9 Rémi Verschelde 2015-04-23 14:50:22 CEST
Now that I know a bit more about library packaging than I did in 2013, I can tell that the issue described here is not a bug.

For bzip 1.0.6, the library soname number is 1, and therefore by policy we provide the lib itself plus a symbolic link to libname.so.<soname number>.

So we provide:
$ ll /usr/lib64/libbz2.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    15 oct.  17  2014 /usr/lib64/libbz2.so -> libbz2.so.1.0.6*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    15 oct.  17  2014 /usr/lib64/libbz2.so.1 -> libbz2.so.1.0.6*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 68000 oct.  17  2014 /usr/lib64/libbz2.so.1.0.6*

Any piece of software that requires libbz2.so.1.0 is badly packaged, because software can either require the full specific version (libbz2.so.1.0.6), or the soname (libbz2.so.1).

Debian-based distros do provide the so.#.# symlink, that's why some applications built on let's say Ubuntu are searching for this symlink.

Note that Fedora also closed the same bug report as invalid: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461863

Resolution: OLD => INVALID