Hello, a new cfitsio (3.330) is going to land tomorrow in rawhide and F19 . All the packages depending on cfitsio must be rebuilt. Following this thread, http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-March/179610.html I have changed the way we create the (non-define by upstream) soname of libcfitsio. The new soname is libcfitsio.so.%{version} (libcfitsio.so.3.330 in this case). A lot of packages check the existance of libcfitsio.so (instead of using the pkg-config file cfitsio provides), Changing the name to libcfitsio-%{version}.so would require to patch those packages also.

Oh great. I didn't thought that a link from libcfitsio-3.330.so.0 to libcfitsio.so would work. I have changed it now. The soname is (finally) libcfitsio-3.330.so.0, the library is libcfitsio-3.330.so.0 and is linked to libcfitsio.so

"Standard" versioning is not beneficial here at all. As explained before, here the full version is part of the SONAME. Not just the major version. libcfitsio.so.3.330 would be incompatible with libcfitsio.so.3.340 as mentioned in a later post by Sergio (on 2013-03-22) already. There is no common libcfitsio.so.3 that would be downward compatible.

> The version goes after .so, not before it, unless you want to have it > also in the symlink, which you explicitly DON'T want here. Why not? It would even have been okay to name the run-time lib libcfitsio-3.330.so with the implicit opportunity to use the same file as the build-time lib. That would even make it possible to ship multiple releases of cfitsio, since with a non-versioning build-time lib, multiple -devel packages would conflict in their .so symlink (if that one is used).

> I know that going back and forth sucks (as everything will have to be > rebuilt AGAIN), but I think you should really should change this back > (and you should never have changed it from .so.3.330 to -3.330.so.0 in > the first place). Either naming version would require rebuilds of dependencies for version changes. So, why bother?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:44:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > "Standard" versioning is not beneficial here at all. As explained before, > > here the full version is part of the SONAME. Not just the major version. > > libcfitsio.so.3.330 would be incompatible with libcfitsio.so.3.340 as > > mentioned in a later post by Sergio (on 2013-03-22) already. There is > > no common libcfitsio.so.3 that would be downward compatible. > > But there's no rule that says that the soname has to be libcfitsio.so.3 > (well, there is if the package builds using libtool, but e.g. CMake allows > any arbitrary soname, and it also correctly handles the case where the > soname is the same as the fully-versioned name). In cfitsio's case, the > makefile commands writing the library are handwritten (i.e. don't use > libtool) and thus also allow an arbitrary soname; in fact, the soname WAS > libcfitsio.so.3.330 before you incorrectly told him to change it Why is that incorrect? > (based on > the wrong assumption that he would be setting the soname to just > libcfitsio.so.3, which would of course be wrong). Huh? Who has made that assumption? The previous soname was libcfitsio.so.0, which has been a bad choice for an API/ABI that changes so frequently. > Just set the soname and the fully-versioned name both to > "libcfitsio.so.%{version}". That is misleading. IMHO. > >> The version goes after .so, not before it, unless you want to have it > >> also in the symlink, which you explicitly DON'T want here. > > > > Why not? It would even have been okay to name the run-time lib > > libcfitsio-3.330.so with the implicit opportunity to use the same file > > as the build-time lib. That would even make it possible to ship multiple > > releases of cfitsio, since with a non-versioning build-time lib, multiple > > -devel packages would conflict in their .so symlink (if that one is used). > > But then ALL packages using cfitsio have to be patched to use the versioned > name. It just doesn't make sense. That isn't done, however, so currently no patching is necessary. > >> I know that going back and forth sucks (as everything will have to be > >> rebuilt AGAIN), but I think you should really should change this back > >> (and you should never have changed it from .so.3.330 to -3.330.so.0 in > >> the first place). > > > > Either naming version would require rebuilds of dependencies for version > > changes. So, why bother? > > Because libcfitsio.so → libcfitsio.so.3.330 is just the cleaner scheme > compared to libcfitsio.so → libcfitsio-3.330.so.0. Your scheme has 2 > versions, one of which is always 0, and the devel symlink does not follow > the pattern of pointing from foo.so to foo.so.* with the same name foo. "Cleaner"? That's all? Then this is a superfluous discussion. It doesn't make sense to go in circles. What you consider cleaner is just a version that pretends that a clean versioning scheme is implemented. The added .0 does no harm. It would make it possible to change the ABI without bumping the library version. -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux 3.9.0-0.rc3.git1.4.fc19.x86_64 loadavg: 0.08 0.08 0.07 -- devel mailing list devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel