https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005989 --- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #3) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > There is already: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orc > > > > While there is no relation, wouldn't the liborc confuse with orc? > > I don't see how. orc does not have a liborc subpackage, and once or if (my) > liborc package exists it they would not be able to add one, right? I think there won't be anything stopping anybody to add `liborc` subpackage, unless they happen to know about `liborc` package. > > Or > > possibly collide (in the future). It certainly provides > > `liborc-0.4.so.0()(64bit)`, not sure what is the soname of this package. > > Libraries: > * liborc-0.4 != liborc. I.e. liborc-0.4.so != liborc.so, liborc-0.4.a != > liborc.a > > and their SO_NAMEs: > * liborc-0.4.so.1 != liborc.so.1 > > There is no collision. Probably not ATM. (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #4) > And yes, I checked when I started and found orc, and I considered the > libraries and SO_NAMEs. ;-) Thx for pointing this out. I was not sure, therefore I thought it might be good idea to raise this concern just in case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005989 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
