2009/3/19 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx>: > Alex Lancaster wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> The packaging guidelines: >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages >> >> recommend that unversioned .so libraries should go into a -devel >> package. I'm reviewing a package, eclib, that has no versioned .so >> libraries at all: >> >> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476398 >> >> To satisfy the review requirements submitter put the .so into a -devel >> package and suppressed the main eclib package, as there are no >> versioned .so to package. It seems to make more sense to actually >> remove the -devel package and include them in the main eclib package. >> >> The guidelines don't appear to cover the case of packages that only >> consist of unversioned .so's. Ideally upstream would add the >> versioning, but currently don't support versioning the library. >> >> Either way, I would like to know what the best practice would be in >> this case, and ultimately it would be useful if there was an explicit >> guideline. >> > > If upstream doesn't do library versioning it is a safe bet that they > don't guarantee ABI stability either. Another possibility is that this library is meant to be dlopened. That was the case with yafray which is a image renderer for blender. When i've patched it to use a SOVERSION and moved the symlink to a -devel subpackage, then it used the binary as a fallback method to talk to the image render which disabled lot of features. At this time, it wasn't possible to dlopen from a versioned shared object.. I think it is nowadays ; despite it still doesn't make sense in the yafray case. (as in no case, any blender component are meant to be linked with the yafray library). Nicolas (kwizart) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
