OK to bump soname for a lesser-used library?
Adam Jackson
ajax at redhat.com
Tue Mar 5 15:59:26 UTC 2013
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 14:07 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> So given that this library's use is pretty well contained, might it be
> OK to go ahead and update in F18?
Yeah, that's fine.
In the future, consider following the glibc pattern of fixing the soname
for all but truly-world-breaking changes, and using symbol versions to
annotate API additions. That way a package that uses an API introduced
in dyninst 8.2 will get an rpm Requires for foo.so(dyninst-8.2)(64bit),
which will make yum automatically search for a sufficiently new dyninst
package without breaking the soname.
Minor numbers really do not belong in sonames, for this exact reason.
Every soname string is essentially a unique major version number.
- ajax
More information about the devel
mailing list