Someone, could give us advice about below situation, if the new
package htslib's "/usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9" is valid?
"1.9" is upstream software's version. "2" is ABI's version (so
version).
```
<mock-chroot> sh-5.0# ls -l /usr/lib64/libhts.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so -> libhts.so.1.9
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 759680 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 ->
libhts.so.1.9
```
I thought it was valid, because we see many examples like following libraries.
But there is an objection for that on the ticket.
I think if the htslib pattern is wrong, we need to update the guideline.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
```
$ ls -l /usr/lib64/libz.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so -> libz.so.1.2.11*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1 ->
libz.so.1.2.11*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 128904 Aug 15 09:30 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1.2.11*
```
```
$ find /usr/lib64 -name "lib*.so.*" -a -type f
/usr/lib64/libKF5SyntaxHighlighting.so.5.59.0
/usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1.1.0
/usr/lib64/liburcu-common.so.6.0.0
...
$ find /usr/lib64 -name "lib*.so.*" -a -type f | wc -l
2082
```
Could you comment here or on below ticket?
Someone, could you be an sponsor of the reporter of the ticket?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504#c42
Thanks.
--
Jun | He - His - Him