On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:42:37AM +0000, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:17:37AM +0000, Enrico Zini wrote: > > I would like to get to the point of uploading #519184. However I have > > one issue on which I'm unsure: the library API and ABI would be stable > > enough, but upstream is not building or supporting shared libraries yet. > > Last time I asked, he had some libtool problem in some obscure > > architecture and no time to investigate on it. > I'll pick 1 unless I get significant objections. Is there a reason you need this now and can't wait until you've managed to argue for the shared library from upstream and cajoule them into producing a .so? I had an upstream that wasn't very confident with soname changes and went through a long process explaining that and the benefits but ultimately it was worth it. -- _ huggie@earth.li -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) debian-legal "consensus" is worth approximately all of the (_) (_) lint currently residing in my belly button. -- Brian Nelson (_) \___ ___/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature