I don't know when the 3 suffix was added. It may have been due to versioning at some time but if I recall correctly we keep the 3 suffix to avoid a name class with with the other nss package (name switch service I believe). Bob or Kai can set me straight on this matter. Another thing that puzzles me if that this is a problem on F-13 but not on F-12. See comments in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596840 Elio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Nottingham" <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2010 11:48:41 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: FC13 nss-softokn-freebl update issues Elio Maldonado (emaldona@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > Not sure but I strongly suspect a change made to nss.spec to be the cause. > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596840#c7 It's due to the fact that nss-softokn-freebl (actually, *all* the nss/nspr libraires) do not fit the normal library naming, so it's not explicitly pulled for multilib. For any update or release set that's composed with a package that explicitly requires a compat arch of nss-softokn-freebl (such as glibc, libpurple, pam_pkcs11, etc.), it will get pulled in via dependency resolution. F-13 updates has none of these, so it doesn't. We could add some hacks to mash to get it pulled in, but I must ask... why do all the NSS/NSPR libraries version their libraries in the library name instead of the so version (i.e., libfreebl3.so instead of libfreebl.so.3)? Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
