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
It's pretty obvious that the Correct way to do things is what you
> 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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Please encrypt email sent to me.