"This scheme makes it possible to install with the RPM package manager and use multiple shared libraries that share the same name stem but having different SO version (shared object version)." (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy )
Sorry, I was on clusterlabs submit and DCM workshop last two weeks. And I 've a few questions about this rule:
Is it necessary that multiple version libraries with same name necessary to exist at the same time, for corosync, I do not think it is necessary.
This will add complexity of maintenance, people will tend to try mix libraries.
Splitting the library to multiple libraries will make it quite different from upstream, even this will not change code at all, this may also add complexity of maintenance.
Multiple libraries are allowed inside one RPM IF, and ONLY IF, the libraries change their soname in step-lock
This is obviously not the case here (as some are .so.4, others .so.5 and .so.6)
For this reason, the split in separate packages is mandated by the shared library packaging policy.
Exceptions happen only to 'private libraries which do not install header and other devel files' - where the library split can generally be avoided completeley.
why do you want to split the libcorsync4 to so many packages?
"This scheme makes it possible to install with the RPM package manager and use multiple shared libraries that share the same name stem but having different SO version (shared object version)." (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy )
Sorry, I was on clusterlabs submit and DCM workshop last two weeks. And I 've a few questions about this rule:
Is it necessary that multiple version libraries with same name necessary to exist at the same time, for corosync, I do not think it is necessary.
This will add complexity of maintenance, people will tend to try mix libraries.
Splitting the library to multiple libraries will make it quite different from upstream, even this will not change code at all, this may also add complexity of maintenance.
Is it compulsory to follow the rule?
@dimstar , second opinions?
SLPP is rather clear here:
Multiple libraries are allowed inside one RPM IF, and ONLY IF, the libraries change their soname in step-lock
This is obviously not the case here (as some are .so.4, others .so.5 and .so.6)
For this reason, the split in separate packages is mandated by the shared library packaging policy.
Exceptions happen only to 'private libraries which do not install header and other devel files' - where the library split can generally be avoided completeley.
@BinLiu, @zhonglidong: review reminder
@jengelh and @dimstar, thanks for comfirmation