[ATrpms-devel] Final remarks about RHEL6

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Fri Feb 25 00:16:18 CET 2011


On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 09:22 -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> I think we have now a minimum set of packages to turn rhel6 usable
> from a desktop point of view.

:)

> However, I have a question: what is the official qt4 ATrpms version?
> 
> When I installed avidemux, it had an unresolved symbol because I was
> using the
> stock qt 4.6.2. That is, the package installed, but the executable did
> not run (not very nice..).
> 
> avidemux: symbol lookup error: avidemux: undefined symbol:
> _ZN9QListData11detach_growEPii
> 
> also, see: 
> 
> http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/applications/446948-symbol-lookup-errors-after-updating-libkdecore4.html
> 
> Well, if qt47 is mandatory, because you seem to be linking everything
> against it,
> it can not be on testing. It has to go to stable.

:/
The repo need to define proper names for the bist used. qt47 will
probably never make it to what we currently call "stable" as that is
supposed to not touch upstream packages.

> The other option is forgetting qt47, and start using qtwebkit,
> possibly including
> it as a BR in some specs (e.g., mythtv). The absence of qtwebkit was
> the only reason for providing qt47 on rhel6.

I don't yet trust qtwebkit as much as I'd like to. The reason atwebkit
was dropped from RHEL builds were too many security issues. ATM I feel
more confident tracking qt from Fedora (and thus the security updates to
webkit) than staying with an older version where future security issues
will require backporting of fixes.

> Qt seems to be compatible top down only, I mean, it works when having
> a higher version replacing
> a lower version, and not the other way around. 

Yes, that's true of all libs. If done correctly the soname should change
even for just adding new symbols to libraries for exactly this reason.
The same has happened with glib/gtk etc. over the years.

The remedy for such issues are rpaths, but these are not in favour in
Fedora/RHEL world.

> Finally, will we have a rhel6 kernel-tuxonice?

Probably a question to ask at Matthias while offering access to RHEL6
systems/licenses.
-- 
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20110225/5ebd5008/attachment.sig>


More information about the atrpms-devel mailing list