https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494 --- Comment #99 from Stansoft <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > d) libaubit4gl.so should link to libaubit4gl.so.1 not directly to libaubit4gl.so.1.5.3 Is there a standard defined somewhere for how the links should be setup? I can find it done both ways on Fedora. libaubit4gl.so -> libaubit4gl.so.1 -> libaubit4gl.so.1.5.3 or libaubit4gl.so -> libaubit4gl.so.1.5.3 libaubit4gl.so.1 -> libaubit4gl.so.1.5.3 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages "Please note that in most cases, only the fully versioned shared library file (/usr/lib/libfoo.so.3.2.0) is an actual file, all of the other files are symbolic links to it." This seems to imply the second option of linking I have shown above. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
