https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 --- Comment #23 from giovanni.cabiddu@xxxxxxxxx --- > Why does qatlib need to rename the library file to include the software version? The main reason why this was done in the upstream project was to have a simple way to understand which version of the library is installed in the system by looking at /lib64/. This is mainly an issue when the library is built and installed from sources but is not when the RPM is installed since you can check what rpm is installed. The libraries were renamed as: libqat.so -> libqat.so.20.10.0 libqat.so.0 -> libqat.so.20.10.0 libqat.so.20.10.0 The makefile can be changed as you proposed to have libqat.so -> libqat.so.0.0.0 libqat.so.0 -> libqat.so.0.0.0 libqat.so.0.0.0 as this is the default produced by autotools. In order to be able to detect the version we can add an additional symlink that includes in the name the version of the library: libqat-20.10.so -> libqat.so.0.0.0 If this option is preferred we need to go for an additional upstream release (I have a patch already for that). It might take a couple of days to get it approved due to the internal process. BTW, I also checked other libraries and it seems that there isn't consistency. For e.g. this is the approach used by libc: libc.so.6 -> libc-2.32.so libc-2.32.so libc.so In any case, is the realname of the library a problem? In the current schema the realname updates at every release and it is independent from the fully qualified soname (which includes the soversion). Applications will be using the fully qualified soname and not referring directly to the realname. Regarding the component, I see now that qatlib has been added to Bugzilla. I can now create a ticket for tracking the ExcludeArch. -- 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
