Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478581 Robert Scheck <red...@linuxnetz.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d | |e AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d | |e --- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck <red...@linuxnetz.de> 2009-01-01 13:41:17 EDT --- [16:37:47] < lkundrak> cassmodiah: I'm wondering if you can review pnglite? [16:37:57] < lkundrak> cassmodiah: should be fairly simple -- just one .c file :) [16:38:46] < cassmodiah> i'm not sure with this [16:38:58] < cassmodiah> wait, i know which is a better guy for that [16:39:00] < cassmodiah> rsc ping [16:39:14] < lkundrak> :) [16:44:20] < rsc> cassmodiah: pong [16:46:02] < cassmodiah> rsc do you have time for a short look at a review request? [16:47:05] < cassmodiah> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478581 [16:47:06] < buggbot> Bug 478581: medium, low, ---, nob...@fedoraproject.org, NEW, Package Review: pnglite - A lightweight C library for loading PNG images [16:49:44] < rsc> lkundrak: I'm not absolutely sure, whether the ABI soname stuff is clever. Was this practised somewhere else was well? [16:51:17] < lkundrak> rsc: I'm not really sure. I know I did that, but don't remember if it was in Fedora package. But if upstream is not willing to maintain soname (which I did not ask though), is there anything else we can do? [16:53:16] < lkundrak> rsc: you know -- pnglite is just a single pnglite.c file, upstream doesn't even maintian a build script where soname could be enforced [16:54:52] < rsc> lkundrak: understood. Why is %{abi_minor} == %{release}? If you've to rebuild for e.g. a new GCC; soname would be minorly bumped... [16:55:31] < lkundrak> rsc: abi_minor was not meant to be the part of soname. If it is, then it is a mistake [16:56:04] < lkundrak> rsc: -Wl,--soname,libpnglite.so.%{abi_major} [16:56:10] < lkundrak> rsc: there's only abi_major [16:56:12] < rsc> libpnglite.so.%{abi_major}.%{abi_minor} [16:56:24] < lkundrak> rsc: right, that's not a soname. only a filename. [16:56:35] < rsc> ah right. Sorry. [16:57:43] < rsc> but anyway: If you bump %{version}, %{release} should be reset. Then you would have to increase %{abi_major} to ensure, that libpnglite.so.%{abi_major}.%{abi_minor} is newer, not older from the filename. [16:57:53] < rsc> is that expected behaviour? [17:00:18] < lkundrak> rsc: yes. that's why there's a huge comment in the beginning [17:00:54] < lkundrak> rsc: but in case a new major version is released without abi change, then we would unnecessarily change soname [17:01:05] < lkundrak> rsc: I don't think that's likely though [17:11:03] < lkundrak> rsc: on a second thought -- I don't know what is the last digit in the library file name for. Probably it won't be a problem if it was reset. Probably we could decouple if from release. [17:17:59] < cassmodiah> lkundrak one of my teeworlds testers has no sound [17:19:26] < lkundrak> cassmodiah: well, I do not think it is related to any change we did [17:20:34] < rsc> lkundrak: I'll try the formal review in a few minutes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
