The packaging guidelines indicate that shared libraries should have sonames, and if not provided by upstream, packager should use a low number soname such as 0.x.y to enable easy bumping of the soname should upstream later add one. This assumes semantic versioning. If upstream does not use semantic versioning, is it reasonable to use whatever versioning scheme they use? One alternative is libtool versioning[1,2]. What to do if the versioning scheme is unclear? In particular is versioning such as: libSDL-1.2.so.0 -> libSDL-1.2.so.1.2.68 libserf-1.so.0 -> libserf-1.so.1.3.9 libutempter.so.0 -> libutempter.so.1.2.1 reasonable or should these all be libSDL-1.2.so.1 -> libSDL-1.2.so.1.2.68 libserf-1.so.1 -> libserf-1.so.1.3.9 libutempter.so.1 -> libutempter.so.1.2.1 These issues have arisen when reviewing [3] 1) https://autotools.info/libtool/version.html 2) https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Libtool-versioning.html 3) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241062 _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
