[Fedora-packaging] Request for Guideline Clarification

Jon Ciesla limb at jcomserv.net
Mon Dec 21 21:31:08 UTC 2009

> Hi all,
> I've been gathering bits and
pieces of information regarding the
> packaging of shared
libraries for a while now.  As I understand it:
> -
Normal .so libraries with versioned filenames go into the base package
> for a program when they exist


> -
Unversioned .so libraries go into the -devel package


>    -- If there are no versioned libraries for a program,
should a
> versioned library be added or should the unversioned
.so file be
> included in the base package?

Option B, I
think, but someone else with more insight should chime in. . .

> - Libraries which are used by other programs at runtime should
> versioned, and in %{_libdir}
>    -- Are there
exceptions to this?  When is it appropriate to leverage
subdirectories and /etc/ld.so.conf.d/?

How so, by adding a path
to /etc/ld.so.conf?

> - Libraries which are plugins to one
specific program, and are dlopened
> by that program, do not need
a versioned filename.  They should go in
> their own subdierctory
in %{_libdir} (e.g. /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.10)
>    -- If packaged
as seperate plugins, they should be in packages called
packagename-plugins-pluginname, or something similar
- All shared library filenames should begin with lib

> A lot of this isn't in the packaging guidelines, I
think if these points
> could be clarified and included in the
guidelines it would help to
> answer a lot of questions.

If you like, you can write up a draft, and post here, or submit to the

> Thanks,
> Rich
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging at redhat.com

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear,
seek only love

-d. bowie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20091221/8e645c5c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list