[lug] library naming conventions, sym links

[Hugh Brown]

On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 18:38 -0600, D. Stimits wrote:
> I've always thought that libraries (dynamic) would be named in the 
> format of:
> libSomeLib.so.0.0.0
> ...then a sym link created for
> libSomeLib.so.0.0 -> libSomeLib.so.0.0.0
> libSomeLib.so.0 -> libSomeLib.0.0
> libSomeLib.so -> libSomeLib.0
> 
> However, it seems that rpm is telling me this is wrong. Rpm seems to 
> want to do this, where libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 is the hard link:
> libSomeLib.so -> libSomeLib.so.0.0.0
> libSomeLib.so.0 -> libSomeLib.so.0.0.0
> libSomeLib.so.0.0 -> libSomeLib.so.0.0.0
> 
> Is this a correct standard, with the top scenario being wrong? It seems 
> like rpm is breaking things (or at least looking for a way to cause 
> version breakage) by using the latter version of sym link.
> 
> D. Stimits, stimits AT comcast DOT net
> _______________________________________________


The only difference I see in your question is the linking order

e.g.

ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so.0.0
ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so.0
ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so



ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so
ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so.0
ln -s libSomeLib.so.0.0.0 libSomeLib.so.0.0

I'm assuming I've misunderstood your question, because I don't think
either way would cause problems.

Hugh