Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690038 --- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-28 23:00:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > I contacted upstream about the soname, they accidentally omitted it from the > > release. I've patched in a library version and soversion consistent with what > > will be added in future releases. > > OK, that's great. However, is the soversion really supposed to be identical to > the package version, i.e. does the library's ABI change with every new release? > In this case, all potential packages depending on this library had do be > rebuilt every time you update the package. This seems to be a bit odd. > > > > The python bindings can't be built without pygccxml and pyplusplus. Neither of > > these python modules are packaged in Fedora. > > Ah, right. > > The package looks good now and could be approved. However, please ask upstream > to shed some light on their soname scheme, as it could cause some problems in > the future. I think you're mixing up VERSION and SOVERSION. The VERSION property dictates what the library file is actually named: in this case, it's tied to the full version number of the project, so the library is named libompl.so.0.9.2. The name of the library doesn't have anything to do with soname dependencies however. The SONAME property is set to the project's major version, which is just 0. You can check using objdump: $ objdump -p /usr/lib64/libompl.so.0.9.2 |grep SONAME SONAME libompl.so.0 This SONAME is what defines the ABI version, and won't change under this scheme until the project bumps it major version number. Major version changes usually imply ABI changes anyway, but up until the major project version changes, any dependencies won't need a rebuild when ompl is updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review