On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:38:16PM -0700, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello Mathew,
>
> Friday, October 26, 2001, 1:01:31 PM, you wrote:
>
> MK> Somehow, the way avifile links looses the dependancy
> MK> information. Snooping the .so headers shows this. I guess somehow
> MK> libtool(?) is to blame, whatever is doing the linking.
>
> libwin32.so and other plugins are not linked explicitly to
> libaviplay.so. Missing symbols should be resolved automatically if
> plugin is loaded by libaviplay ( unless we have a bug in dynamic
> linker ).
I think we could link libcommon with libwin32 - the plugin itself
should be independent on libavifile - as some system can't resolve
this backward dependencies - thought FreeBSD shouldn't have this
problem.
But I think linking libcommon will not be that problematic and will
make libwin32 and other plugins usable without libavifile itself - which
is good I think.
--
.''`. Which fundamental human right do you want to give up today?
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
`. `' Zdenek Kabelac kabi@{debian.org, users.sf.net, fi.muni.cz}
`- Resistance is futile. You all will be packaged
_______________________________________________
Avifile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://prak.org/mailman/listinfo/avifile
