* Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Are these libraries different (different ABI/API) from the ones in > libdirectfb-0.9-16? If they are, I'm interesting in why they are > different, and how they are different. If they are identical, you > probably should use the same file names and sonames for the > libraries in both packages.
The library in the normal .deb package has many features enabled that we do not need in the installer library. The biggest disadvantage is, that it is linked against xlib (I suppose for some additional font rendering). This blows up the library unnecessarily and would require us to package xlib for the installer as well (what we definitly not want to do if we can go without). So I used other compile options to compile the library, producing a binary incompatible library. > Why do you need a special udeb-dev? To provide the new library for installation on the build system, as well as an appropriate development link. We need this for other udebs, that contain programs or libraries that wil be linked against libdirectfb. Sebastian -- PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
