On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:59:16PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > > Also, regarding: > > Clashes for /usr/lib/libodbcminiS.so.1.0.0: > with /usr/lib/libodbcdrvcfg2S.so.1.0.0 => ODBCINSTGetProperties .... > with /usr/lib/libesoobS.so.1.0.0 => ODBCINSTGetProperties > with /usr/lib/libodbcmyS.so.1.0.0 => ODBCINSTGetProperties > > is it correct that all these libraries must only ever be used indirectly > via libodbc (which will dlopen them) - and no app may link directly > against them? If so they can go on the whitelist, but they should not > really be in /usr/lib to start with; dlopen-able modules should go in > /usr/lib/<somedirectory>. I filled a bug for .so in %_libdir, and raised that issue, but the maintainer don't want to do the move. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203641 There is an issue of backward compatibility since the libraries .so are in config files. But the main issue seems to me to be that the maintainer don't care much about those issues. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
