Rebuild of dependent packages with the new unixODBC seems to be quite
optimistic. The are only few failures and none of them seems to be caused
by some missing libraries. We can now discuss only about the runtime
problems, as it seems, almost no buildtime problems occurred
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/odubaj/unixODBC/builds/
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:20 PM Ondrej Dubaj <odubaj(a)redhat.com> wrote:
My apologies, of course we are aiming to package the unversioned
symbolic
links to the "real" libraries to *-devel package. I thought it was clear
from the beginning.
Why should we hack the soversion ? There are no changes to the soname or
ABI compatibility coming, we want to just package the unversioned symbolic
links to the "real" libraries to *-devel package.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding my $0.02 here...
>
> Since they are real libraries, they don't belong in a -devel package, the
> intent is to package the unversioned symbolic links to the "real"
> libraries. A end user package should never require a -devel package to run.
>
> One option would be to hack in a soversion to the build process. I did
> this for many years with openCOLLADA, and used either
> abi-compliance-checker or abipkgdiff to determine when a soversion bump was
> required.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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
>