Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
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.
If it is a plugin it does not belong directly under %{_libdir}, but should be in
a subdir of it, and having unversioned .so files in subdirs is fine (as long as they
do not get added to ld.so's search path.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
