https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 --- Comment #6 from Scott Talbert <swt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #5) > > > Release: 0.1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist} > > > > I'm thinking this should just be 1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist} since this is a > > post-release (ie, 1.15r4 came after 1.15) rather than a pre-release. See > > here: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease > > > I thought this is a release-candidate, i.e. a pre-release. There is no 1.15 > listed on the download page. And the changelog in the header file lists 1.15 > after 1.15r4. I am pretty sure it is a post-release. If you go look at the SVN revision history, in r61 he originally had 1.15 but then he changes it to r3. So I think the r's are post-release. > > > gcc %{?__global_ldflags} -fPIC -shared %{name}.o -o lib%{name}.so > > > > I'm wondering if we should be adding soname versioning? It doesn't seem > > like upstream is changing much but it seems like it might be good to have. > > I do not think this is good idea because SONAME is part of ABI. Having > Fedora specific ABI is not good. I know this code is a library nowhere now, > but that could change in the future. I want to keep the differences as > little as possible. I had thought FPC had put something out on this but it looks like it is still draft: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/405 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanek/Draft_-_Downstream_.so_name_versioning So at the very least we should probably try to convince upstream to start versioning. -- 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