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

Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited



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.

Besides which, without someone taking responsibility for the so
versioning of a library, there is no guarantee that Red Hat's .so is
going to mean the same thing as ours, especially if, say, their release
is based on XFree86 4.1.0 and ours is based on 4.2.0, or vice versa.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Men use thought only to justify
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    their wrong doings, and speech only
branden@debian.org                 |    to conceal their thoughts.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Voltaire

Attachment: pgp4JYSlLzMpL.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: