On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 03:36:29PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 19:53 -0700 1999-08-18, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >Because even some free programs use shlib plugins without sonames and it'd
> >be better to maintain compatibility than to break it simply because we
> >would prefer to have sonames?
> shared objects without sonames are not shared libraries, and thus do
> not belong in the shlibs file.
> If upstream intends them to be used as shared libraries instead of
> dlopen()ed shared objects, they should have sonames.
That's nice.
Oddly, though, I thought Debian was more about packaging existing software
than dictating how that software is to be written in the first place. [0]
We have the software. We're allowed to distribute it. We have a maintainer
willing to do the work to package it. We have a patch that we simply
need to apply.
Sure, upstream are lame, stupid, have their heads in the sand, whatever.
Why, though, shouldn't we apply the patch to dpkg-shlibs and package it
anyway?
Cheers,
aj
[0] Mind you, I'd love to see a "Debian's Guide to Upstream Developers" [1]
or something similar that goes into some of these issues. Things like
what sort of targets are nice to have in Makefiles, and what they
should do (all, install, clean, clobber, eg), the naming of libraries,
how to deal with i18n, what to do to handle command line arguments,
where to put data files, what to be set[ug]id to, what sort of license
to choose, etc...
[1] "The Salmon book". :)
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpcYzpUec8hP.pgp
Description: PGP signature