Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mozldap Alias: mozldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401 ------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-08 13:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > You can either > a) go along and *not* do any symlinking on the packaging level. E.g. the 'so's > remain in the core package and there are no so symlinks in *-devel > b) clean it up and rename the SONAMEs from lib*ldap60.so -> lib*ldap.so.6 with > a patch against the build in the tarball. > > a) is quick and dirty and matches current upstream methology, b) is clean and > proper, but requires you to get the patch submitted upstream, otherwise we'll be > breaking library ABI. Note that mozldap follows the Mozilla library naming conventions that are used by NSPR and NSS which have been in Fedora for a while now (e.g. libnspr4.so, libnss3.so, etc.). So, unless there are plans to also convert those libraries to the proper naming convention, I think it suffices to stick with libldap60.so.6.0.0. It should not be a big deal to put the proper so name in the shared libraries, so that the main package will have libldap60.so.6.0.0 and the devel package will have libldap60.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review