Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||libudev0 should be renamed to libudev or udev-libs|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Kevin Kofler <kevin>|
|Component:||udev||Assignee:||Harald Hoyer <harald>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-06-30 06:17:57 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Kevin Kofler 2009-03-14 21:37:00 EDT
The libudev0 subpackage should be renamed to libudev (or possibly udev-libs, which is the common convention, but in this case libvolume_id is separate, so libudev is probably the better option). There should be no version suffix for the default version of a library, and in this case the suffix is even more pointless because libudev.so.0 is the _only_ version of the library. Including the soname version in the package name is not useful with RPM because that's what the automatic soname dependencies are for.
Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 08:14:34 EDT
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle. Changing version to '11'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 2 Harald Hoyer 2009-06-30 06:17:57 EDT
done in rawhide
Comment 3 Kevin Kofler 2009-06-30 10:44:40 EDT
OK, but now you added libgudev1 which also shouldn't have that suffix.
Comment 4 Harald Hoyer 2009-06-30 10:58:43 EDT
yes it should, because it has the version number in the library name.