Re: Shlibs files and libfoo.so

1999-09-05 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 12:25:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I > would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not > using dpkg-shlibdeps isn't IMO reasonable, neither is hacking a binary. All righ

Re: Shlibs files and libfoo.so

1999-09-05 Thread Zephaniah E. Hull
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 07:13:52PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:10:07PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > > > And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I > > > would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not > > >

Re: Shlibs files and libfoo.so

1999-09-05 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:10:07PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > > And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I > > would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not > > using dpkg-shlibdeps isn't IMO reasonable, neither is hacking a binary.

Re: Shlibs files and libfoo.so

1999-09-05 Thread Zephaniah E. Hull
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 12:25:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > Other packages for similar reasons are built without dpkg-shlibdeps. I > decided to fix this bug. And now my bugfix is being stonewalled for > political reasons. If those who oppose policy ammendments aren't willing > to stand beh