yes, now its provide libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.7()(64bit) [2] , you need rebuild your packages

ImageMagick soname bump was approved [0] in EPEL Steering Committee meeting. and I'm continuing with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1]. and 81 security bugs will be fixed

[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...

[2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-62b1a9e158

On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 11:40 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:

Shared message to address an issue below.

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ImageMagick in EPEL 8 Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 15:20:54 -0700 From: Patrick J. LoPresti lopresti@gmail.com To: luya@fedoraproject.org   Hi. I just noticed that ImageMagick in EPEL for RHEL8 uses major version number 7, as in "libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.7".

I have a number of binaries compiled for RHEL7 against ImageMagick, where the major number was 6, as in "libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6". These binaries do not run on RHEL8 because of this major version mismatch.

Has the .so really changed in a backwards-incompatible way? (When I symlink the .so.6 -> .so.7 libraries, all of my RHEL7-compiled applications appear to run.) If not, can I request that the version in EPEL change to use .so.6?

Thanks!

- Pat

_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure