[lug] library naming conventions, sym links

[Lee Woodworth]

Hugh Brown wrote:
> 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
There are fewer symlinks traversed with this setup. You have
libxxx.so -> libxxx.0.0.0 vs. libxxx.so -> libxxx.s.0 ... -> libxxx.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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug