https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 --- Comment #43 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > I don't think this should have been waved through with the shared libraries in that state. > It may or may not strictly be incorrect to link libhts.so.1.9 with soname libhts.so.2, but it's at least misleading when someone familiar with ELF versioning looks at a program's dynamic linkage or what's in libdir. Did someone on devel say that's OK? I do not say that you are wrong. I asked you to discuss on the htslib upstream, or to send a pull-request on comment 29. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504#c29 Because I am not familiar with the ELF, and I do not have an ability to fix the spec file aligning your requests. I thought that you declined the options because you did not have a time. If you act to make your idea real, the situation moves forward. But otherwise not. By the way, my account's role is just "user", not "sponsor". I can not be a sponsor of Sam at the moment. So, I want to ask someone to be a sponsor of Sam. -- 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
