[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libnet, libnet1, libnet_devel

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Thu Nov 18 12:50:03 CET 2010

No dia 17 de Novembro de 2010 17:57, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> Two comments:
> 1. the SONAME is libnet.so.1

Are you sure?  As far as I can tell, there's no soname defined in the library:

/usr/ccs/bin/dump -Lv root/opt/csw/lib/libnet.so.1.0.2 | grep SONAME | wc -l

Which makes me wonder, whether it's possible to inject a soname into
an existing binary.  Has anyone done this before?

>  Why do you then provide a symlink
>  /opt/csw/lib/libnet.so=libnet.so.1.0.2
> It would seem to be completely unneccessary.

> After reading the wiki page you mentioned, I then did a search to
> see if any packages are requiring a SONAME of libnet.so.1.0.2

> According to our search database, none do.
> They would seem to instead require just "libnet.so"

Isn't it a standard practice to have the following?

libfoo.so.1 → libfoo.so.1.0
libfoo.so.1.0 → libfoo.so.1.0.2

If upstream does it, why shouldn't we?

Also, <name>.so should never be the actual library if it doesn't have
version embedded in <name>, in such a case it should always be a

> 2. Given that this is a "lib" package... having "lib_devel" would seem
> to be redundant.
> What do you think of my addendum to the wiki proposal, where for
> 'lib*' packages specifically, we just put the "devel" stuff in the
> straight "lib" package?
> So, overall what I am suggesting to you, is:
> - move contents of libnet_devel into libnet

How would you remove the libnet.so library from the catalog?

"Re-release libnet" is not a good answer.  We've discussed it that
removing shared libraries should not consist of repackaging existing

> - remove libnet.so.1.0.2 symlink entirely.

libnet.so.1.0.2 is not a symlink, it's the file with data.

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list