On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:16:46 +0100, Dominik wrote: > Unrelated to this, libcgi maintainer should not have chosen to use > libcgi.so.1 as the soname without upstream's approval. Not the first time this has happened. It's reviewer's responsibility to not approve such packages. Current guidelines disallow static libs, reviewers point that out, packagers make up a soname and version, and reviewers accept it. Instead, they ought to reject such packages and request involvement of upstream developers in deciding on a soname and library versioning scheme. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
