Re: Putting .so symlinks in libs package for dlopen()ing?

uff is really compatible? Is it using versioned symbols or something? Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |"Hah, I can just see a real playsmith puttin' a..a DONKEY in a play!"| | -- Terry Pratchett, _Lords

Re: Putting .so symlinks in libs package for dlopen()ing?

Cheers, > > Timshel > > -- > Timshel Knoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Debian email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Debian GNU/Linux developer: http://people.debian.org/~timshel/ > GnuPG public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL

Re: Policy ambiguity regarding control files

tent, and it is implied by 5.7.1, but not "stated". Hm. There used to be a long section in policy (or was it the packaging manual?) that gave a formal definition of the syntax of description fields. Whatever happened to it? Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMA

Re: Summary of KDE filesystem discussion

based on that. I seem to remember that someone did this for Nautilus already, but I'm not sure. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Afternoon, n.: | |That part o

Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL

nting commie pinko nutcase" rhetoric in some places, I suppose we'll have to deal with this more often in the future..) At least, that's what a non-lawyer thinks. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |

Re: new fields in debian/control

ed out of the dpkg package >=) ), but one question: why only one successor? I don't see this as making the algorithms much easier, and it seems like there are times where you'd *want* multiple successors; eg, when a big package splits into a gazillion itty-bitty packages (netbase, net