https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129429 Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) > (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #6) > > Some remarks: > > > > - Version of so files looks incorrect: /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.0.0.0, > > /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.0 Shouldn't this be /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.4.3.4 and > > /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.4? > > No. Library version numbers and package version numbers actually are not > connected at all (cf. info libtool). > > So, even though using "0.0.0" is likely to bug upstream and Fedora at some > time in future (e.g. when upstream changes the API/ABI), using "0.0.0" is > technically correct. > Thanks for you explainations. This point looks good then. -- 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