Someone, could give us advice about below situation, if the new package htslib's "/usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9" is valid? "1.9" is upstream software's version. "2" is ABI's version (so version). ``` <mock-chroot> sh-5.0# ls -l /usr/lib64/libhts.so* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so -> libhts.so.1.9 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 759680 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 -> libhts.so.1.9 ``` I thought it was valid, because we see many examples like following libraries. But there is an objection for that on the ticket. I think if the htslib pattern is wrong, we need to update the guideline. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ``` $ ls -l /usr/lib64/libz.so* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so -> libz.so.1.2.11* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.2.11* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 128904 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1.2.11* ``` ``` $ find /usr/lib64 -name "lib*.so.*" -a -type f /usr/lib64/libKF5SyntaxHighlighting.so.5.59.0 /usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1.1.0 /usr/lib64/liburcu-common.so.6.0.0 ... $ find /usr/lib64 -name "lib*.so.*" -a -type f | wc -l 2082 ``` Could you comment here or on below ticket? Someone, could you be an sponsor of the reporter of the ticket? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504#c42 Thanks. -- Jun | He - His - Him _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
