On Saturday 28 February 2009 22:56:55 Torsten Rahn wrote: > Sorry, but this is a really bad solution: This will just mean that all > other applications which would use the library would need to depend on the > marble package as well (then the point of having a separation between the > marble and the libmarble package becomes really moot ...). Thanks Torsten & tackat. I understand where you are coming from. I'm actually the Debian digikam maintainer, but have opened dialog with the Debian marble maintainer(s). One thing we like to be able to do is have multiple versions of libraries installable, so when ABI changes, we don't have to rebuilt everything immediately. Would it be possible to version (soname) the plugins, to match libmarble? Alternatively given the small size of the plugins, why not just roll them up in libmarble and expose them as another API, if indeed they need exposure? Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.