[Bug 241550] Review Request: ERESI - A unified reverse engineering framework for UNIX operating systems

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: ERESI - A unified reverse engineering framework for UNIX operating systems


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241550





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2007-06-11 07:36 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Won't fix :
> The guidelines say
> - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
> then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel 
> package.
> 
> As this package doesn't contain any library file with a suffix 
> I won't put so
> files in the -devel package

Well, so again why does the library %{_libdir}/*.so has no
soname while this package tries to ship -devel package?

Shipping -devel package means that the libraries %{_libdir}/*.so
is allowed to be linked from other packages. So some binaries in
other package may link to the libraries in this package.

Then ABI of the libraries in this package may change in the future.
At this time, as these libraries have no sover, rpm has no clue of
whether ABI of these libraries changed, so rpm allows the upgrading
of this package. However, this upgrade surely stop the other binaries
linking to these libraries from working any more.

So IMO when the package want to provide -devel package, no-sover
libraries are generally bad. What do you think?



-- 
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.