On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Juanjo! > > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:41:25 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> That is not something ECL has to provide. It is more a configuration >>>> option that operating systems may provide. >>> >>> Sorry, I'm not a skilled programmed, but I don't understand why this is >>> not ECL task: ECL provides the libecl.so library, so who else should >>> provide its SONAME? >> >> The SONAME is a basically a linker option and can be passed to ECL as >> a configuration flag during the build process. It is not our task as >> developers of ECL to impose a certain numbering scheme or link flags >> on the main source distribution, but rather the package maintainer to >> set it based on their own criteria or distribution standards. > > Well, I really think SONAME's decision belongs to developers, not to > package maintainers. Let's say that Debian uses a SONAME of 0.1 while > Ubuntu 0.2 [1]: then every effort done with the LSB [2] is lost.
This indeed would be unfortunate. Just as ECL developers control ECL release versioning, I believe most people would naturally assume that ECL developers control ECL SONAMEs. At least, that is the way it works for most projects. -- Gaby -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
