On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > wrote:
>> > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in
>> > > Rawhide
>> > > today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like
>> > > the
>> > > only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs
>> > > rebuilding.
>> > > I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't work I'll contact
>> > > the
>> > > maintainer.
>> > >
>> > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there
>> > any reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in
>> > the packaging guidelines?
>> That would only fix problem where upstream is well disciplined and
>> properly manages soversions.
>>
>> If I have any doubt I always build test packages and do a comparison
>> with abi-compliance-checker.
>
> Sure, but handling it most of the time is better than handling it none
> of the time. I agree with Yaakov that the guidelines should discourage
> spec files using globs for soversions.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
I'll admit that I'm guilty of this when I craft packages targeting
Fedora. For the most part, it's because I don't have a good reason to
care about the soversion (aside from making sure it exists). When I'm
making packages targeting Mageia or openSUSE, I do actually care about
it, because the library package is supposed to include the soversion
in the name. Fedora's guidelines don't require the soversion to be
part of the package name (which I like), but at the same time, it's a
bit disconcerting that our repository policies and the way Yum/DNF
work do not allow us to take advantage of RPM's capability to parallel
install multiple versions of a package with the same name. Provided
that they don't have file conflicts, I don't see why this isn't
supported in Yum/DNF. I do understand it adds a bit of burden onto
Fedora to maintain a multitude of library package versions, but it's
rather bizarre that Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
that doesn't have a consistent policy on dealing with cases where
multiple versions of the same library package must exist (either
temporarily or permanently). I've seen different conventions used
across the board, which makes things very confusing...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
