Chris Adams wrote:
> If upstream isn't building a shared library, then you have no good way
> to set a version and then maintain an ABI.
[...]
> No matter how you make a shared library, I'd suggest getting that change
> accepted upstream before trying to put it in Fedora.
I dug into it a bit m
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Take a look at the elfutils makefiles. Yes, it's using autoconf but it
> doesn't matter. The rules can be copied anyway.
Thanks, that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for!
Eric
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
Once upon a time, Ulrich Drepper said:
> On 01/22/2010 08:37 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > If upstream isn't building a shared library, then you have no good way
> > to set a version and then maintain an ABI.
>
> Not true at all. Why should this be the case? The package maintainer
> should ideally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2010 08:37 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> If upstream isn't building a shared library, then you have no good way
> to set a version and then maintain an ABI.
Not true at all. Why should this be the case? The package maintainer
should ideally _alw
Once upon a time, Eric Smith said:
> I don't want to replace the upstream Makefile with use of autoconf and
> automake, and the libtool documentation doesn't really explain how to
> use libtool without those. Can I just do the shared library versioning
> "by hand", by creating the appropriate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2010 05:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Can I just do the shared library versioning
> "by hand", by creating the appropriate symlinks in the package? Or is
> there some other preferred way to deal with this kind of situation?
The link line has
