https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2337050
Michael Catanzaro <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #15 from Michael Catanzaro <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Steve Cossette from comment #8) > Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, or I'm using the wrong words here, > if a library ends in .so, it's usually a development library. If it has a > number after, then it's an installable library. I might be wrong, I guess? That's true for libraries that applications are expected to link to at build time (which is most libraries). For plugins that are expected to be dynamically loaded at runtime, then it's normal to have no versioning, but such plugins should not be installed directly into a linker search path to ensure they are not linked to by mistake. So any library ending in .so *usually* goes in the -devel package and therefore does not get installed. But not always (if it's a plugin installed into a custom location). In this case, yes the unversioned library should be a symlink and it belongs in a -devel subpackage. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2337050 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202337050%23c15 -- _______________________________________________ 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] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
