Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > > - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author > > - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2 > > as its soname > I agree with your points but why couldn't they have an li

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > > - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author > > - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2 > > as its soname > I agree with your points but why couldn't they have an l

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-23 Thread Eric Dorland
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > - Imlib2

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-22 Thread Eric Dorland
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > - Imlib2

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-22 Thread Brian Russo
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:40:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to superse

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-22 Thread Brian Russo
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:40:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supers

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... However, consider: - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author - There will never b

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... However, consider: - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author - There will never

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Eric Dorland
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Shane, > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shane Wegner wrote: > > > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > > libdotconf.

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Shane, On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shane Wegner wrote: > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's > named libd

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Eric Dorland
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Shane, > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shane Wegner wrote: > > > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > > libdotconf

RE: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 21-Mar-2001 Shane Wegner wrote: > Hi, > > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's > named libdotconf-1

Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Shane Wegner
Hi, I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking for some help with this particular one. I am packaging version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's named libdotconf-1.0.so.0. Now, I was under the impression that one

Re: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Shane, On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shane Wegner wrote: > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's > named lib

RE: Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 21-Mar-2001 Shane Wegner wrote: > Hi, > > I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking > for some help with this particular one. I am packaging > version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it > libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's > named libdotconf-

Question about shared libraries

2001-03-21 Thread Shane Wegner
Hi, I have packaged shared libraries in the past but am looking for some help with this particular one. I am packaging version 1.0.0 of dotconf and rather than naming it libdotconf.so.1 as was done for 0.x (libdotconf.so.0) it's named libdotconf-1.0.so.0. Now, I was under the impression that on