Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 09:36:27AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> Sure they are. That's how we got into this problem in the first
>> place, with various DVD players telling their users to convert libXv.a
>> into a .so so their plugins could load them.
>
> That's because Red Hat broke the rules, a decision they have since
> reversed.
No, Red Hat broke the rules because people using OMS asked them to. I
used RHL at the time, and I remember when the .so version was added:
after at least one app required the .so.
Here's the bug that gave RHL libXv.so:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28196
And here's one after it was taken away:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49159
I understand and agree with all the reasons _not_ to have a .so of
this till upstream does. I just want it on the record that it was the
app people that got us into this mess, and that historically they have
written applications that depend on shared versions that upstream
doesn't ship.
--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
"I'd love to go out with you, but I've been scheduled for a karma transplant."
Reply to: