> 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... > > This is a can of worms I don't even want to think about. Also, Fedora does have such a policy, please read the guidelines for compat packages. John. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
