On 2023-02-20 02:16, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
You mention 'libtool' multiple times through this thread. libtool
defines specific semantics for 3 digits in the version number.
Not all shared libraries are built with libtool, and even those
which did use libtool didn't neccesarily apply libtool's semantics.
Possibly this proposal works fine regardless ? In fact, presumably it
must, otherwise its going to break stuff.
If so, then I'd suggest removing references to libtool and describing
directly what kind of versions it looks for and what it does with them.
Yes, the naming of things is a question I raised in the PR. I'm open to
suggestions. :)
I'm also interested in looking at examples of non-libtool behavior,
since I'm proposing that we enforce versioning semantics where they have
not been enforced in the past. Can we find libraries that provide only
two dot-separated numbers? What about more than three? Can we treat
the first two as major.minor, or do we have examples where "minor" is
evidently a later number in the set?
The currently open PR will only generate a versioned dependency if the
library's real name ends in ".so." followed by numbers and dots. If
there's a letter (e.g. libssl.so.1.1.1q), it doesn't get a version.
Mostly because:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.2.3git 1.2.3
1.2.3git > 1.2.3
Is 1.2.3git a release from git leading up to 1.2.3, or is it a release
after 1.2.3 with fixes from git?
How should maintainers handle packages where libraries have versions
that don't conform to the semantics we want?
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
