https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129429
Julien Enselme <juj...@jujens.eu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Julien Enselme <juj...@jujens.eu> ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7)
> (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #6)
> > Some remarks:
> >
> > - Version of so files looks incorrect: /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.0.0.0,
> > /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.0 Shouldn't this be /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.4.3.4 and
> > /usr/lib64/libccnet.so.4?
>
> No. Library version numbers and package version numbers actually are not
> connected at all (cf. info libtool).
>
> So, even though using "0.0.0" is likely to bug upstream and Fedora at some
> time in future (e.g. when upstream changes the API/ABI), using "0.0.0" is
> technically correct.
>
Thanks for you explainations. This point looks good then.
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
