[lsb-discuss] NSS: soname problems and compatibility issues
wtc at google.com
Wed Aug 27 13:36:33 PDT 2008
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Wichmann, Mats D
<mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
>> Since the libnss3.so soname has been used for
>> eight years, we don't want to change it for cosmetic
>> reasons. If the libnss3.so soname causes real
>> problems, I believe the NSS team is open to
>> libnss3.so.3 (or libnss3.so.0?), with a libnss3.so
>> symlink for compatibility.
> libnss3.so.0 would be fine, but at the moment I'm
> just rattling this cage to see if we can figure out
> how to get out of an (apparently unnecessary) hitch
> in moving forward with the proposal that's been made
> to LSB.
Could you tell us what's the proper soname naming
convention in LSB?
The two examples you gave, libc.so.6 and
libglib-2.0.so.0, clearly follow different naming
conventions. I am only familiar with the libc.so.6
convention, which I believe comes from Unix
SVR4 as Howard Chu mentioned.
Getting back to the Debian libnss3.so.1d soname:
there are actually two issues:
1. Why Debian used libnss3.so.0d originally.
2. What Debian considers to be incompatible
changes in NSS 3.12 to change the soname to
We are especially interested in the answer to the
More information about the lsb-discuss