V Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 04:38:25PM +0300, Benson Muite napsal(a): > 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 > As far as I know the 3-component version schema as used by libtool is irrelevant for glibc dynamic linker, hence for Fedora. The reason is that what matters for Fedora are only two files: libSDL.so -- used at build time libSDL-1.2.so.0 -- used at run time Whether these files are regular files or symlinks and where the symlinks point does not matter. What matters is that a soname stored inside the first one (scanelf --soname /usr/lib64/libSDL.so) matches the later file name. So for Fedora it's only a matter of aesthetics. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
