On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 12:49 -0700, Noriko Hosoi wrote: > William raised a good point in fixing this ticket #48404. > > We have *.so and *.so.* (*.so # & *.so.#.#.#) for libraries. I assumed > *.so should be in 389-ds-base-devel and *.so.* should be in > 389-ds-base-libs. But it is not needed to be like that? He proposed to > put all the .so and .so.* files in -libs and none in -devel. > > We are currently discussing about libnunc-stans.so* and libslapd.so*. I > see another one libns-dshttpd.so* which are all in -libs. > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 17 Apr 14 10:22 libslapd.so -> libslapd.so.0.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 17 Apr 14 10:22 libslapd.so.0 -> libslapd.so.0.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 6403918 Apr 14 10:22 libslapd.so.0.0.0 Basically, if we looked at -devel in isolation, it requires -libs to function. But -devel provides a .so symlink, and we may have some application that looks for that. We should require -devel for an application to find our library. That's why I'd rather just see all the .so objects in -libs, and leave -devel to be our headers. There are going to be three (or maybe more) use cases: DS install (maybe with external plugins using the .so files): * 389-ds-base * 389-ds-base-libs DS developer (maybe making plugins?) * 389-ds-base * 389-ds-base-libs * 389-ds-base-devel Plugin developer, or some other development * 389-ds-base-libs * 389-ds-base-devel In all, they will all need 389-ds-base-libs which is why we should put all the .so there. -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
