https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504
--- Comment #42 from Dave Love <[email protected]> --- I don't think this should have been waved through with the shared libraries in that state. It may or may not strictly be incorrect to link libhts.so.1.9 with soname libhts.so.2, but it's at least misleading when someone familiar with ELF versioning looks at a program's dynamic linkage or what's in libdir. Did someone on devel say that's OK? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
