Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 20:25 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> This ensures that any package that should avoid being linked against OpenSSL >> for license reasons will get the gnutls flavor of the library, but other >> packages can link against either flavor. > OK, I have to change the GnuTLS version to libneon-gnutls.so then. > >> It also assumes that there's really a reason for separate gnutls and OpenSSL >> flavors of the package. I'm not sure what that reason is. > See above. All neon dependant package looks for libneon.so to link > with. So if I change the GnuTLS compiled libneon.so to libneon-gnutls.so > then there will be linkage problems if the source is not altered to look > for libneon-gnutls.so instead of libneon.so . > I emphasis, as all source looks for libneon.so and both the OpenSSL and > GnuTLS neon produce the same library name (libneon.so), that's why I > have the separate packages and so conflict with each other. > See above if I alter the neon sources to provide libneon-gnutls.so when > compiled with GnuTLS.
Err, change the libneon26-gnutls to as above but have a normal libneon.so symlink to it in its -dev package. It is OK for the -dev packages to conflict. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
