Re: questions about general shlibs evilness
[...]
Ari> But this makes it rather hard to rename our libraries correctly
Ari> with ${VERSION} in Makefile.am. Which is easy enough to get
Ari> around anyhow: just build them the same way we have been, and add
Ari> a little magic in the install-exec-local rule in each Makefile.am
Ari> to rename the libraries and add the symlinks (can't rely on
Ari> ldconfig to do that, our libraries are out of the main path, and
Ari> don't really need to be in the main path).
You could still use ldconfig if you edited /etc/ld.so.conf, right?
Ari> what's a sane way to generate versioned libraries when not using
Ari> libtool? There must be some friendly example, my understanding is
Ari> that libtool isn't widely-loved around debian parts...
I can't answer your actual question (how to make the dh_ crowd happy),
but here's a general (ie. OT) tip: do make a distinction between
libtool the implementation and libtool the concept, and don't let the
ugliness of the former prejudice your opinion about the latter. In
particular, I think the version number scheme libtool uses is quite
cool, and fortunately it's completely compatible with the way glibc
loader works, so even if you rename the libs by other means you can
use the libtool numbers.
Ari> Ran this by Matt Danish and he said "That's why I use Common
Ari> Lisp: no shared library hell" :-)
Applies equally to ML and Haskell :-)
--
Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A.
GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087
EngSoc adopts market economy: cheap is wasteful, efficient is expensive.
Reply to: