.so's in devel packages...

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 07:50:54 UTC 2012

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:25:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> > I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
> > understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
> > several packages with different versioning....
> Not really, no. They go in -devel packages because the only time it's
> actually appropriate to use a library by referring to its unversioned
> name is when you're compiling another application against it. It's never
> safe for anything to access a library at runtime via an unversioned name
> because there is no guarantee of stability; you can't be at all sure
> that the version of the library you're calling is actually capable of
> doing what you're asking it to do. Since the only use of the unversioned
> 'instance' (symlink, in Fedora...) of a library is in development,
> naturally it goes in the devel package. We can take advantage of this in
> generating dependencies, and we do, which is why it's important not to
> put the .so file in a runtime package, or that runtime package will get
> a bunch of automatically generated dependencies on -devel packages.

And again, this is not the full story. There is no hard rule on where 
non-versioned .so files are to be packaged. They could still be local libs
(with no API for public consumption) strictly required by an application.
They could still be plug-ins, libraries loaded by an application at
run-time. They could even be symlinks to versioned plug-in libs, with
the application strictly requiring the non-versioned symlink when trying
to link with a plug-in at run-time. 

Where .so files are to be put solely depends on their purpose. Many
non-versioned libfoo.so files are just the symlink that make -lfoo work
during compilation/linking. But that is not sufficient to require *all*
non-versioned .so files to be placed in -devel packages.

If Fedora Packaging Guidelines are still not clear about this, we may need
another update for them. But detailed feedback on them would be appreciated
first, IMHO.

Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.2-4.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.52 0.77 0.44

More information about the devel mailing list