On 7/30/07, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: > > Yes. I put a new revision libusb-0.1.12-1011 into 10.4/unstable > > that is supposed to fix this. Please try. > > Yup, that did it. Now it builds cleanly. I think I'll submit my > libhid0.info now. One last question, I don't quite get the rules for > when a package would be called libhid0 vs. libhid. I figure that > since this library is version 0.2.16, the package should be called > libhid0. Is that correct?
libhid0-shlibs is probably best for the shlibs splitoff, although it's not necessarily because of the 0.2.16 version number. The "0" suffix comes from the library version number, which happens to be at 0.0.0 right now (otool says 1.0.0, but the .dylib name in /sw/lib should include 0.0.0). Martin Krafft, the original author of the libhid 0.2.x rewrite, added some m4 code that was supposed to increment the library version numbers appropriately when the API changed, but that didn't work properly. Feel free to assign the package tracker submission to me. -- - Charles Lepple ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
