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@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@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@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