On Thursday 2021-11-25 12:40, Michael Ströder wrote:

HI!

OpenLDAP 2.6.0+ installs its libldap and liblber like this:

/usr/lib64/libldap.so.2.0.200 /usr/lib64/liblber.so.2.0.200

Following the policy in [1] (and advice of an upstream dev) it seems to be the right approach to call the library package now 'libldap2'. Is this correct? But what about all the dependencies on package 'libldap'?

The policy in [1] states that it's based on SONAME, not filename (most of the time). It even talks about readelf.

[1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Package_nam...

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:41 PM Michael Ströder wrote:

HI!

OpenLDAP 2.6.0+ installs its libldap and liblber like this:

/usr/lib64/libldap.so.2.0.200 /usr/lib64/liblber.so.2.0.200

Following the policy in [1] (and advice of an upstream dev) it seems to be the right approach to call the library package now 'libldap2'. Is this correct?

Yes

But what about all the dependencies on package 'libldap'?

I would claim that any explicit dependency on package 'libldap' is wrong. Automatic dependencies will require something like libldap.so.2()(64bit) and so will not be affected. Otherwise if previous version provided the same library, it should probably be Provides: old-name Obsoletes: old-name < cut-off-version

I've prepared 2.6 packages for my own needs which seem to work and install besides libldap-2_4-2. Would you please review this package (see [2])?

I will then prepare 2.6.0 for Tumbleweed (including an important backport fix for ITS#9753 [3]).

Thanks in advance.

Ciao, Michael.

[1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Package_nam...

[2] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:stroeder:openldap26/openldap2

[3] https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9753