> Perhaps for packages which don't have a well defined versioning > system (e.g., 2.3.0 -> 2.4.0 transition can be both binary > compatible or not), -version-info makes more sense.
If you mean that the project doesn't have specific guidelines, yes, perhaps. I'm not convinced that the need to manually align other files like catalogs has anything to do with how to version a shared library, but maybe I'm not seeing the issue clearly. Anyway, I've registered my opinion, I wouldn't do what you're doing here on a platform that didn't require it (or require a lot of work to deal with), but I now understand that you're doing it intentionally. Originally I misunderstood because the 2.x release did NOT embed the version inside the filename, it was after the .so extension. Since there's never been a sanctioned minor revision that I know of, I didn't realize that the plan for that would have been to duplicate the library name. I assumed you were manually emulating what libtool does. My reaction was "hey, this isn't kosher IMHO, so I better report this", not realizing it was by design. You should be able to adjust the spec file I sent you, just change the filenames in the %files section that pull in the libraries. The main package should include the libxerces-c-3.0.0.so file, and the -devel package should include the libxerces-c.so link. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
