On 2023-02-22 19:17, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
I see the value of the proposal, but I am worried that it may run into
issues with upstream packages using very weird library version numbers, so I
am not yet convinced that it is really a good idea.I
In case it helps: I started with the filelist in the "fedora" repo, and
a list of all of the deps printed by dnf repoquery that ended with
'()(64bit)', which should be a list of all of the ELF dependencies that
don't have versioned symbols. I compared the two to build a list of
dependencies that match the prefix of a file in the file list, but not
the entire file name (so the dependency "libssl.so.1.1()(64bit)" matches
"libssl.so.1.1.1q").
In the "fedora" repo, I can only currently find about 11 dependencies
that look like they'd be a symlink to a full name, where the full name
suffix isn't a numeric version:
https://paste.centos.org/view/7e996c65 ("odd" full names)
https://paste.centos.org/view/0b26cb00 (the full list)
CentOS paste links don't last very long, so let me know if those expire
too quickly.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
