https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is? A missing soname is a reoccuring topic in the package review queue. The first question here would be "Which soname would you add, if upstream didn't support it"? No soname (and in particular no soversion) means, for example, that there can only be one libutf8proc.so at runtime, not multiple parallel installable versions (in case that would ever become necessary). All programs would depend on a non-versioned libutf8proc.so, which is a weak dependency. If a future upgrade touched the ABI of the library, it would break programs at runtime. Without upstream handling the API/ABI compatibility and the soname versioning, the responsibility to maintain an own soversioning scheme would be your burden as the packager. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review