* Brian Sutherland (jinty@web.de) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev? > > > > Indeed. > > These few .so files are imported from zope and maybe slightly modified. > So there is probably no use for people to build against them. > Would a -dev be required? Hrm, I suppose probably not.. The -dev is for header files (mainly, really) and if there aren't any (because it's not meant to be built against) then I suppose it's reasonable to not have one. Make sure to figure out what kind of relationship there is between the .so (Is it really .so, or .so.1.2.123 or something?) and the binaries that link against it. Do the versions have to match exactly? How do you handle ABI changes to the .so? Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature