> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librarie
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packag
> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or somethin
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librari
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packa
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> > gphoto2 installed on their system, or why some people need one and
> >
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> > gphoto2 installed on their system, or why some people need one and
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
