Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-19 19:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I can't say for sure, but perhaps this helps: > > $ rpmlint -I invalid-soname > invalid-soname : > The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or > lib<libname>-<major>.so. > > The regexp used for the check is: > > ^lib.+(\.so\.[\.0-9]+|-[\.0-9]+\.so)$ > > Someone more familiar with sonames should to comment on whether there's > something wrong with libexpect5.43.so. My guess would be no, don't change it, > it's just unusual - cases like that are more often found in form like > libexpect5-43.so or libexpect-5.43.so. Perhaps ask upstream what they think and > if they'd like to change towards a more usual looking sonames for future releases? The libfoo<major>.<minor>.so format is common for Tcl extensions (see Tcl and Tk), but doesn't seem to be used much elsewhere. As mentioned in comment #4, packages that wish to link against libexpect often use the -lexpect5.43 in order to guarantee a specific version. This seems to be historical cruft that never got replaced with a better alternative, and now 'libfoo<major>.<minor>.so is common enough that I expect other things might break if it's changed now. -- 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