On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
>
> > >True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
> > >provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
> > >provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec files
> > >incompatible.
> > >
> > >Any guidance from LSB?
> > >
> > No, LSB seems to deal with more basic issues of the O/S. What you could
> > consider the "primatives" of a GNU/Linux systems contents. Nothing as
> > far reaching as naming conventions for packages other than the minimum
> > requisite packages to start & run a basic Linux system, RPM
> > construction, etc.
>
> RPM appears to, at least on Red Hat and Novell/SUSE derived machines,
> support the libraries' ELF SONAME, too, which is what my former
> suggestion has been about, and AFAICS, the soname is the same on all
> machines, namely liblzo.so.1 (use readelf -d to figure).
Shorter term, because 2.0 final is so close, I don't want to change
anything in the .spec except for stuff which is bracketed by %if
"%{_vendor}" == "MandrakeSoft".
James
