[Bug 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration

[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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
Alias: adminutil

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293





------- Additional Comments From rmeggins at redhat.com  2007-05-17 10:05 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> i think that what im refering to is  
> 
> `-version-number MAJOR[:MINOR[:REVISION]]'
...
>      numbers are already used across operating systems.  New projects
>      should use the `-version-info' flag instead.
> 
> the .so should be .so.1.1.0  not .so.0.0.0

The description says "New projects should use the -version-info flag instead." 
I see a real mix of usage in /usr/lib - some libs use -version-number, some use
-version-info, some are just .so with no version (or version in the name e.g.
libnspr4.so).  Is there a page on the fedoraproject wiki that describes library
naming and versioning conventions?

-- 
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.