Alex Lancaster wrote: > > Hi there, > > The packaging guidelines: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages > > recommend that unversioned .so libraries should go into a -devel > package.  I'm reviewing a package, eclib, that has no versioned .so > libraries at all: > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476398 > > To satisfy the review requirements submitter put the .so into a -devel > package and suppressed the main eclib package, as there are no > versioned .so to package.  It seems to make more sense to actually > remove the -devel package and include them in the main eclib package. > > The guidelines don't appear to cover the case of packages that only > consist of unversioned .so's.  Ideally upstream would add the > versioning, but currently don't support versioning the library. > > Either way, I would like to know what the best practice would be in > this case, and ultimately it would be useful if there was an explicit > guideline. > If upstream doesn't do library versioning it is a safe bet that they don't guarantee ABI stability either.

2009/3/19 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl&gt;: > Alex Lancaster wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> The packaging guidelines: >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages >> >> recommend that unversioned .so libraries should go into a -devel >> package. I'm reviewing a package, eclib, that has no versioned .so >> libraries at all: >> >> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476398 >> >> To satisfy the review requirements submitter put the .so into a -devel >> package and suppressed the main eclib package, as there are no >> versioned .so to package. It seems to make more sense to actually >> remove the -devel package and include them in the main eclib package. >> >> The guidelines don't appear to cover the case of packages that only >> consist of unversioned .so's. Ideally upstream would add the >> versioning, but currently don't support versioning the library. >> >> Either way, I would like to know what the best practice would be in >> this case, and ultimately it would be useful if there was an explicit >> guideline. >> > If upstream doesn't do library versioning it is a safe bet that they > don't guarantee ABI stability either. Another possibility is that this library is meant to be dlopened. That was the case with yafray which is a image renderer for blender. When i've patched it to use a SOVERSION and moved the symlink to a -devel subpackage, then it used the binary as a fallback method to talk to the image render which disabled lot of features.

Drawbacks of doing so include problems if/when upstream later implements versioning as well and ships a version of a lib using the same soname that was earlier used in Fedora for something that's not ABI compatible,

Hi there, The packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages recommend that unversioned .so libraries should go into a -devel package. I'm reviewing a package, eclib, that has no versioned .so libraries at all: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476398 To satisfy the review requirements submitter put the .so into a -devel package and suppressed the main eclib package, as there are no versioned .so to package.

It seems to make more sense to actually remove the -devel package and include them in the main eclib package.

The guidelines don't appear to cover the case of packages that only consist of unversioned .so's.

Ideally upstream would add the versioning, but currently don't support versioning the library.

On Do März 19 2009, Alex Lancaster wrote: > The guidelines don't appear to cover the case of packages that only > consist of unversioned .so's. Ideally upstream would add the The Review Guidelines are easier to understand: | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. | libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go | in a -devel package. Imho this means, that the .so files without other suffixed .so.* files go in the main package.

On 2009-03-19, 07:14 GMT, Alex Lancaster wrote: > recommend that unversioned .so libraries should go into > a -devel package.  I'm reviewing a package, eclib, that has no > versioned .so libraries at all: Sorry for OT question, but I am just fighting with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471180 and it seems to be similar case. Reporter claims that making a symlink from libpsppire.so.0.0 to libpsppire.so makes *THE MAIN PROGRAM* not crashing. Does it make any sense to anybody? Is the program broken, or did I screw up something in the process of building it? I thought that .so files are only for development, not for using the program itself? (and now I cannot reproduce it on my computer) Thanks in advance for any response,