[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: [GB]Conflict with name libgb.so

Hi.. just received this from the primary Gnome Basic author.

I'll make the suggested changes and merge the Gnome Basic stuff into 
/usr/lib/libgbrun.so; Stanford GraphBase need not be touched.


----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Re: [GB]Conflict with name libgb.so
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Meeks <michael@ximian.com>
To: Ben Burton <benb@acm.org>
Cc: gb@helixcode.com

Hi Ben,

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> Hi.  I am currently preparing Gnome Basic packages for Debian.  As it
> happens, there is another package (Stanford GraphBase, package sgb)
> which also provides /usr/lib/libgb.so.  Thus one of us will have to
> have Debian packages with libraries named differently from the
> upstream sources.

        Ok, well - I would be fairly happy to move to integrating libgb.so
into libgbrun and just installing libgbrun [ which sounds somewhat more
unlikely to conflict with anything ].

> What is the severity of renaming the Debian libraries to libgbparse.so
> or something similar?  Do people currently expect it to be installed
> as libgb.so and will more people expect this in the future?  How
> "standard" is libgb.so and how standard is it likely to become?

        Not very standard.

> Sorry, I realise these questions are vague but we're trying to resolve
> the conflict with Debian packages and any input is helpful.

        Sounds fine, a patch to the automake stuff to create a
non-installed libgb.a and merge that with libgbrun.so would be



 mmeeks@gnu.org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



Ben Burton (benb@acm.org)

Director of Training
Australian Informatics Olympiad Committee

If you have the same ideas as everybody else but have them one week
earlier than everyone else then you will be hailed as a
visionary. But if you have them five years earlier you will be
named a lunatic.
	- Barry Jones

Reply to: