Well, bumping up to an OpenSRF 2.6.0 for the purpose of naming the libraries as libtool expects is reasonable on the OpenSRF side, and (although the timing is... not great) I'd rather try for Stretch support in 3.0, even if it doesn't make it in until closer to the RC. Folks are going to have to touch opensrf.xml anyway when upgrading to 3.0 because of qstore.
Well, bumping up to an OpenSRF 2.6.0 for the purpose of naming the libraries as libtool expects is reasonable on the OpenSRF side, and (although the timing is... not great) I'd rather try for Stretch support in 3.0, even if it doesn't make it in until closer to the RC. Folks are going to have to touch opensrf.xml anyway when upgrading to 3.0 because of qstore.