Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited
On Thu, 2001-11-01 at 11:50, Branden Robinson wrote:
> WHAT OTHER PACKAGES NEED TO DO:
>
> 1) The existing SDL and related libraries need to be modified again in a
> manner similar to my patch that implemented "--library-libs". We need
> another new option to sdl-config and friends to indicate linkage for
> plugins. I suggest "--plugin-libs".
This is getting absurd.
(However, if this is what _must_ happen, I'll gladly implement it in
smpeg-xmms.)
It's pretty obvious that the Correct way to do things is what you
mentioned earlier:
> 5) You can't just pick up and build shared versions of these libraries
> unless someone is willing to keep track of their sonames and increment
> the versioning when an incompatible change is made to the library.
> Otherwise, you stand an excellent change of rendering your users'
> programs useless with unresolved symbol errors when they try to run
> them.
Branden, why is X upstream so unwilling to do this? Are the .a libraries
in question in _that_ much flux? (After all, look at some GNOME
libraries: we're up to what, libgnomeprint15?)
Hell, it can't be that difficult to write up a quick test client that
will just test the .so files to see if the binary interfaces have
changed. It can be automated and everything. I'll do it, if need be.
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
Please encrypt email sent to me.
Reply to: