Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-05 08:00 EST ------- > Well, how comes the rest of the world is not following this proposal? glibc and binutils both use it. > The only thing that matters is the SONAME, the library's filename is largely > ignorable (c.f. info libtool, for why this naming is considered harmful). Well, in my libtool info page, in section 6.4 (Managing release information), it holds up `libbfd-2.9.0.so' as the example of naming. > With this, I end up with > /lib/libkeyutils-1.1.1.fc4.so The library's filename is, as you said, largely ignorable; and the fact that the library version number contains 'fc4' will not cause binary incompatibility, since the SONAME is set to the interface symlink (/lib/keyutils.so.N). What would you suggest? I want the release number in there since the library may well be different between two compilations. I suppose I could edit out the distribution tag, but that's messy. Anyway, I've fixed the Makefile problem and the double-slash problem: SPEC URL: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/keyutils/keyutils-1.1-2/keyutils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/keyutils/keyutils-1.1-2/keyutils.spec The static library should be there as this library wraps some system calls that aren't available through glibc. Btw, note that PAM and mount may both need to use the library in this package at some point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
