https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #19 from [email protected] --- > I tried a build reverting that myself, and something else looks off. > Previously the build was creating the library files with this suffix: > > .so.%{soversion}.%{version} > > Now using the Makefile target it creates them with this suffix: > > .so.%{version} > > Is that a bug in the new Makefile target? This is the reason the guidelines > state that that globs should not conceal the soname. That is expected. The upstream library is now installing .so.%{soversion} .so.%{version} Before, instead, the upstream library was not using the correct version in the real name. So we had .so.%{soversion} .so.0.0.0 In the spec we were renaming .so.0.0.0 into .so.%{soversion}.%{version} and then creating symlinks to .so.%{soversion} In the new version of the spec I removed the glob in the %files section and re-introduced a %global soversion with the difference that now there is a soversion for each library we install since both might evolve independently. Is this ok? Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_10/rpm/qatlib.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_10/rpm/qatlib-20.10.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Regarding the git repo, I put a request for qatlib: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30688 -- 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]
