On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 03:36:29PM -0700, Joel Klecker 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.
The point is that you cannot always control this. And when you can, sometimes it's not a good idea to. (in the case of things that get dlopen()d for example) Yet lintian still has issues with this and the build will fail if dpkg-shlibdeps is run on the binary which depends on such a library for some reason. I disagree completely with the belief that hacking binaries is better than modifying the shlibs file format in a non-harmful way to avoid running sed or a perl hack on a binary blindly. Yes that really only applies to non-free packages---why should a technical workaround to a bug be rejected for political reasons? And that is what Ian wants---rejection of a bugfix because its primary beneficiary is non-free software. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BenC> -include ../../debian/el33t.h <BenC> sendmail build...strange header name :) <isildur> hahaha * netgod laffs <netgod> BenC: can u tell i used to maintain sendmail? :P <BenC> heh :)
pgp2PAt6wU7bH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
