Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ERESI - A unified reverse engineering framework for UNIX operating systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241550 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-11 07:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Won't fix : > The guidelines say > - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), > then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel > package. > > As this package doesn't contain any library file with a suffix > I won't put so > files in the -devel package Well, so again why does the library %{_libdir}/*.so has no soname while this package tries to ship -devel package? Shipping -devel package means that the libraries %{_libdir}/*.so is allowed to be linked from other packages. So some binaries in other package may link to the libraries in this package. Then ABI of the libraries in this package may change in the future. At this time, as these libraries have no sover, rpm has no clue of whether ABI of these libraries changed, so rpm allows the upgrading of this package. However, this upgrade surely stop the other binaries linking to these libraries from working any more. So IMO when the package want to provide -devel package, no-sover libraries are generally bad. What do you think? -- 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