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

Re: Packaging a library when upstream does not build a .so

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

Reply to: