At 22:29 Uhr -0500 24.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: [... snipped explanation of why shlibs are good ...]
David, I think you are preaching to the choir here. Martin didn't argue against the shlibs stuff here, just against the -bin stuff (which I don't like much myself, but oh well). No need to write loooong emails repeating a lot of stuff that has been said before =) >The difficulty comes when something else, like binaries, also needs to >be installed at runtime. That's when we get to a third package, and >I agree that it is awkward, especially for backward-compatibility. >We need the third package, though, because the binaries won't have >the version number in their pathnames so they can't go with the libraries, >and other things might depend on them so they can't go with the headers. > >I guess we need to be particularly careful in these cases that we get >other packages changed ASAP to include the dependence on foo-bin. >In fact, a conservative strategy would be to introduce a package foo-bin >which was basically empty, convince all other developers to include it >as a dependency, and *then* do the pacakge-splitting business. But >that really shouldn't be necessary, we should be able to fix these things >as they come up. Uhm... why not just make the header packages (e.g. orbit) depend on the binary package (orbit-bin), which would immediatly solve all the strange problems, and in fact might be required anyway in many cases (e.g. many unix libs requrie their foo-config apps to be useful for development anyway). Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
