On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > * Bill Allombert <[email protected]> [2009-03-17 17:02]:
> > What is the rational for making the library private in the first place ? > In the case of the octave package, it is a decision of the upstream > authors. I think that one of the reasons is to avoid name clashes between > different branches of octave. For instance, we have curently: > octave3.0: /usr/lib/octave-3.0.4/liboctave.so > octave3.1: /usr/lib/octave-3.1.54/liboctave.so Hmm, but what I see is this: lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2009-03-12 02:10 ./usr/lib/octave-3.0.4/liboctave.so -> liboctave.so.3.0.4 So the real file does have the version in it, and as a result the runtime libs should coexist just fine in /usr/lib? You could continue to ship the .so symlinks in the subdirectories and require -L lines when linking, while still avoiding monkeying around with ld.so.conf. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
