Re: BIND 9.X, shared libraries, and package pools
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:44:01AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Josip> Oh, of course. (Packages including several shared libraries
> Josip> suck as far as our naming scheme is concerned :o)
>
> Does bind come with multiple libraries? If so, I think they should
> really be split up, according to standard convention. (unless there
> really are too many libraries to split up).
[snip]
Yes. There can be exceptions, though, like packages that contain two
libraries that will always have the same version number in the SONAME and
will not have these problems. OTOH there's hardly ever a reason for those to
exist, but it can happen. For example, when a package contains two binaries
that both need similar features, but one binary gets linked to libfooa.so
and the other one with libfoob.so. Or something like that.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: