On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Balcaen John <[email protected]> wrote: > Le jeudi 2 août 2012 09:28:28 Colin Guthrie a écrit : >> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 01/08/12 23:09 did gyre and >> >> gimble: >> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> >> I have to agree here that something is "funny" in the libattica package >> >> which ultimately helped to contribute to this issue. >> >> >> >> e.g. on my system before update (tho' with similar results after): >> >> >> >> [colin@jimmy ~]$ rpm -q --provides lib64attica0 >> >> libattica.so.0.3()(64bit) >> >> lib64attica0 = 0.3.0-1.mga2 >> >> lib64attica0(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.mga2 >> >> [colin@jimmy ~]$ rpm -ql lib64attica0 >> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3 >> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3.0 >> >> >> >> So I can see how this mistake was made and TBH I could have made the >> >> same mistake myself (with the caveat that I likely would not have bumped >> >> the version of someone else's package with out confirming first and that >> >> it should have been obvious from testing and installing the build) >> >> >> >> But either way this seems like an issue to fix properly (possibly with >> >> an upstream fix or some modification to the library policy when the >> >> minor version is "presented" like this). >> > >> > Good catch! Of course it's never the library policy that's wrong. The >> > library major version is apparently 0.4 so the correct package name is >> > >> > lib64attica0.3 for the previous one >> > lib64attica0.4 for the current one >> > >> > ... in the specfile: %define attica_major 0.4 >> > >> > Can the maintainer of this package please fix this? >> > >> > To find the version to use, look up the 'soname' of the library. I use: >> > readelf -a /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.4|grep SONAME >> > >> > => >> > ... Library soname: [libattica.so.0.4] >> > >> > What follows ".so." is the major version of the library. >> >> Is that really the correct definition of what a "major" version is? >> >> I always thought the major was just the first number. >> >> The library policy certainly doesn't mention "double digit majors" or >> similar. >> >> Is this something upstream is doing deliberately or is it just an oversight? > https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/master/entry/CMakeLists.txt
Yet something includes the minor in the soname This leads to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2011-December/698438.html or it being flagged in debian by the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian test.
