Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I can not put that .so inside the package, the > other solution might be getting 3 packages from > maserver: libmaserver, libmaserver-dev and maserver > itself. libmaserver would have the shared library and > libmaserver-dev the header files to make new plugins. > Would that be better? > That sounds like a good (and pretty standard) way to do this. You should convince upstream to version the shared library, though; else you'd have to do it yourself, and will get into problems once upstream starts to version it.
Packaging shared libraries is complex business, you should have a look at the libpkg-guide[0]. [0] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Cheers, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 Any technology not indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. -- Terry Pratchett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
