https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 --- Comment #25 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/hotfix/review/htslib.spec > SRPM URL: https://github.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/blob/hotfix/review/htslib-1.9-1.fc32.src.rpm?raw=true Hi I updated the htslib.spec and SRPM file. I renamed libhts-so.1.9 to libhts-1.9.so asking the question to the upstream here https://github.com/samtools/htslib/issues/932#issuecomment-536212327 to align glic(libc)'s style. ``` <mock-chroot> sh-5.0# ls -l /usr/lib64/libhts* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 759680 Sep 28 20:29 /usr/lib64/libhts-1.9.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Sep 28 20:29 /usr/lib64/libhts.so -> libhts-1.9.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Sep 28 20:29 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 -> libhts-1.9.so ``` On my local Fedora 30 environment. ``` $ ls -l /usr/lib64/libc[-.]* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6699224 Jun 6 14:09 /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 16258354 Jun 6 14:10 /usr/lib64/libc.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 253 Jun 6 13:55 /usr/lib64/libc.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Jun 6 13:55 /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 -> libc-2.29.so* ``` I think this situation is to solve the concern "It's simply wrong. .so.1.9 and .so.2 imply incompatible ABIs." * rpmlint: ok. * Test to install binary RPMs: ok * Scratch build: ok https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37915859 Could you review again? Thanks. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
