OK to bump soname for a lesser-used library?

[Adam Jackson]

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