> >>
> >> What should I do regarding this then? Try and patch it to have versioned
> >> libraries (with packages libamada[0-9] and libamanda[0-9]-devel ?) or
> >> leave them unversioned (with packages libamanda and libamanda-devel).
> >>
> >If you leave them unversioned then that defeats the purpose.
> >Can you give an example of how the libname looks like?
>
> These are the two RPMs (of the 4 amanda RPMs that are running on our production
> servers) that need some libification:
>
> [bgmilne bgmilne]$ rpm -qlp rpm/RPMS/i586/amanda-devel-2.4.2p2-1mdk.i586.rpm
> /usr/lib/libamanda.a
> /usr/lib/libamanda.la
> /usr/lib/libamclient.a
> /usr/lib/libamclient.la
> /usr/lib/libamserver.a
> /usr/lib/libamserver.la
> /usr/lib/libamtape.a
> /usr/lib/libamtape.la
These are unversioned. But I think that we can follow the dynamic library way
of linking.
This does mean, that no more than one unversioned static library can be
installed at the same time. Which is not really a problem, since you only
need this to build stuff, not run stuff.
> [bgmilne bgmilne]$ rpm -qlp rpm/RPMS/i586/amanda-2.4.2p2-1mdk.i586.rpm
> /etc/amanda
> /etc/amandates
> /usr/lib/libamanda-2.4.2p2.so
> /usr/lib/libamanda.so
> /usr/lib/libamtape-2.4.2p2.so
> /usr/lib/libamtape.so
> /usr/sbin/amrestore
> /usr/share/man/man8/amrestore.8.bz2
> /var/lib/amanda/.amandahosts
> /var/lib/lib/amanda
>
It would seem that it would be reasonable to use 2.4.2p2 as the library
version.
You'll probably need to put some extra hacks here and there, e.g. if ldd'ing a
program linked to libamanda the output that it's linked to libamanda.so and
not libamanda-2.4.2p2.so (yes, using nonstandard naming may confuse the
linker) then you'll probably need to hack around it somehow, as programs
built with 2.4.2p2 may not be binary compatible with programs built on say,
a previous version.
-- Geoff.
