Hi Marcelo, On 4 May, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 02:15:31PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote: > > > * Reverted my "correction" of the libltdl* package name. The soname > > of the libltdl libraries is currently 0.1.1, therefore the libltdl > > packages should be named libltdl0.1, according to current Debian > > policy. > > if the soname is libltdl.so.0.1.1 the package should be called libltdl0.1.1; > if, OTOH, the soname is libltdl.so.0 (which is more likely, given libtool > generates that kind of sonames), then the package should be called > libltdl0
*sigh* I think I am confusing what the definition of "soname" is. However, I believe you are correct. Looks like I'll have to do another libtool upload and correct my previous one. :( Thanks for correcting me. Much appreciated. > > - The latest libtool can take advantage of installed libtool > > archive (`*.la') files. As such, included `libltdl.la' in > > the libltdl0.1-dev package. > > Interesting point. There's no policy regarding .la files (no mention of > ".la" in policy). If the .la files are actually useful, policy should be > amended. Ossama? Indeed. It was Thomas Tanner, of the libtool team, who pointed out the usefulness of `.la' files with libtool 1.3a and higher. At first glance, it certainly seems like a good thing to install `.la' files in `-dev' packages. However, Ben Collins pointed out potential library directory pollution, which I'll address in my response to his e-mail. However, right now I'm leaning toward including them in `-dev' packages. -Ossama -- Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St. Louis 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
