On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:32 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I guess for that it doesn't help that only one of the 4 llvm-libs > shared libraries (libLLVM-3.*.so) has the version in its name, the other > 3 clearly dependent on that one don't, eventhough I very much doubt they > are anywhere close to be ABI compatible. Ugh, true. Mercifully, nothing appears to be using them: $ repoquery --provides llvm-libs.x86_64 BugpointPasses.so()(64bit) LLVMgold.so()(64bit) config(llvm-libs) = 3.1-11.fc18 libLLVM-3.1.so()(64bit) libLTO.so()(64bit) libprofile_rt.so()(64bit) llvm-libs = 3.1-11.fc18 llvm-libs(x86-64) = 3.1-11.fc18 $ repoquery --whatrequires 'BugpointPasses.so()(64bit)' $ repoquery --whatrequires 'LLVMgold.so()(64bit)' $ repoquery --whatrequires 'libLTO.so()(64bit)' $ repoquery --whatrequires 'libprofile_rt.so()(64bit)' $ So we should start by versioning those as well, even if we don't end up doing compat packages. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
