On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:57:47 +0100, Julian wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski pisze:
> On Monday, 15 December 2008 at 21:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt pisze:
> [...]
>>> ======================================================================
>>> Broken packages in rpmfusion-free-development-x86_64:
>>>
>>> ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-0.52.20080908.fc10.i386 requires libfaac.so.0
>>> gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.9-1.fc10.i386 requires libfaac.so.0
>>> libquicktime-1.0.3-4.fc10.i386 requires libfaac.so.0
>>> mencoder-1.0-0.103.20080903svn.fc10.i386 requires libfaac.so.0
> [...]
>> I am somewhat responsible for faac, I suggested to update it but did not
>> notice the abi bump. Sorry. Please let me know if I can help to bring
>> this back to shape.
>
> Well, you could check if there haven't been any API changes, IOW if the
> affected packages build against the new faac. I would prefer it if this
> build were removed because we're in the middle of rebuilding most of our
> multimedia stack against the new x264 and ffmpeg and I don't want any
> unnecessary release bumps and rebuilds.
>
> Regards,
> R.
>
Hmm, I just installed the faac-1.26 on my Fedora 10, and it seems the
soname is the same:
$ rpm -q --provides faac
libfaac.so.0()(64bit)
faac = 1.26-1.fc11
faac(x86-64) = 1.26-1.fc11
$ readelf -a /usr/lib64/libfaac.so.0.0.0 |grep SONAME
0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libfaac.so.0]
And what are you trying to prove?
* Notice the repository id.
* Notice the package %arch.
* Draw your conclusion.
* Confirm by listing the repo directory.