>>>>> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Presumably, libz.la would be that from the older
Alexandre> version, since libz.la is used for linking. And then,
Alexandre> because libtool sets dlname to the SONAME of the
Alexandre> library, you'd still get the newer version dlopened.
What might go wrong if libz.la points to the newest version, not the
oldest version?
Anyway, I would like to extend my original proposal slightly:
Currently the convention, at least on Linux is (for the example of
libz):
/usr/lib/libz.la
/usr/lib/libz.so -> libz.so.1
/usr/lib/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3
proposed:
/usr/lib/libz.so -> libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.la -> libz.la.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.la.1.1.3
The benefit here would be you have a installation like this
/usr/lib/libz.so -> libz.so.1.1.2
/usr/lib/libz.la -> libz.la.1.1.2
/usr/lib/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.2
/usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3
/usr/lib/libz.la.1.1.2
/usr/lib/libz.la.1.1.3
So multiple copies of the *.la file can now be installed at the one
time, and the *.la symlink is managed in a similar way to the *.so
symlink. While this has benefits specific to Debian (the libz.la
doesn't need to conflict between multiple packages, eg. when it is
required in the run-time library package), I believe it could also
help for the general case to (the system administrator can point *.la
file to different version if desired for some reason).
Any comments?
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
