Bug #57014 RPM devel package installs files in different director than the shared RPM
Submitted: 25 Sep 2010 6:30 Modified: 28 Sep 2010 5:22
Reporter: Geert Vanderkelen Email Updates:
Status: Not a Bug Impact on me:
None 
Category:MySQL Server: Packaging Severity:S2 (Serious)
Version:mysql-5.5.6 OS:Linux (RedHat/CentOS)
Assigned to: CPU Architecture:Any

[25 Sep 2010 6:30] Geert Vanderkelen 
Description:
The following two packages of the same MySQL distribution install their libraries in two different locations:

* MySQL-shared-5.5.6_rc-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
   installs in /usr/lib64
* MySQL-devel-5.5.6_rc-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
   installs in /usr/lib64/mysql

See 'How to repeat' for details.

It's the same for 5.1.51 packages.

How to repeat:
One can check the content of the RPM or when installed like this:

[root@serv1 default]# rpm -ql MySQL-devel-5.5.6_rc-1.rhel5 | grep lib64
/usr/lib64/mysql
/usr/lib64/mysql/libmygcc.a
/usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.a
/usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.a
/usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlservices.a

[root@serv1 default]# rpm -ql MySQL-shared-5.5.6_rc-1.rhel5 | grep lib64
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.so
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.so.16
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient_r.so
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient_r.so.16
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient_r.so.16.0.0
[27 Sep 2010 17:14] Joerg Bruehe 
This is correct, and this is intended behavior for RPMs:

- The "devel" RPM contains static libraries for development,
  these must be accessed using "mysql/" in the path.
  Putting them into /usr/lib would cause name pollution there,
  especially as these files do not have version information.

- The "shared" RPM (and also "shared-compat") contains dynamic
  (aka shared) libraries which should be accessible system-wide
  without setting any specific path - so they must be in /usr/lib.
  Multiple versions are handled by the version number in the file name.

This is unchanged to versions 5.0 and 5.1.

Why do you consider this a bug?
[28 Sep 2010 5:22] Geert Vanderkelen 
Joerg,

That explains it! :)
It looked a bit weird, but I guess it's indeed OK then.
Bug closed as 'Not a bug'.

Cheers,

Geert