https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 --- Comment #28 from Dave Love <dave.love@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #24) > I got a great feedback from a person in the upstream on the ticket. > The htslib's so version rule is following Fedora's glibc's rule. glibc follows the normal rules about sonames, and has a policy to preserve backwards compatibility, so the major version is constant. > So, can we use the built so files without changing so version, can't we? > If you like, I will revert my modification for %make_build and %make_install > line. > > ``` > $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so > glibc-2.29-15.fc30.x86_64 > > $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 > glibc-2.29-15.fc30.x86_64 > > $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libc.so > glibc-devel-2.29-15.fc30.x86_64 > > $ 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* The soname is libc.so.6, and there isn't a libc.so.<something else>. If you're not convinced, I should ask on the devel list, or at Red Hat, where there are libc maintainers. -- 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
