On Sunday 15 December 2002 16:01, Christoph Egger wrote: > libbse, libgic and libgpf are NO extensions. Thus, how should we mark > ggi libs, which are NO extensions? IMO, extensions should be > distinguishable from non-extensions by their (package-)names.
I clearly seem to fail to understand why this would be important, but anyway, this is not a problem (possibly an aesthetic issue, though). > > As far as packaging of gii goes, if I understand the issue > > correctly, it boils down to binary compatibility between libgii and > > its input targets. Currently if a binary incompatile change > > happens, the only way to keep both versions installed would be to > > do some very fancy libgii.conf cruft in order to make each of the > > version of libgii load the proper set of input targets. But given > > that the loading of input targets is fully under libgii control, I > > think it is safe to assume that if any such change happens, libgii > > will provide a mechanism for loading the different versions of > > input targets. Hence I would tend to think that libgii-target-x > > should be the right choice. After three days of psycho rollercoaster between putting it all in one package, giving up on it and having lots of packages nicely split, i had to decide that there is not much that i can do from my side _now_ to put all this on a stable basis within a short term. This one is libggi0-target-x now, proposing the illusion of the possiblility to have more than one generation of libs&mods installed. Anyway, i'm not giving up and hope that we are able to find a midterm solution. /me started to put a script together, quoting the problems that i actually have and can see and we can try to fill in solutions. Mind you, the number of packages depending on libggi is sinking continously ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So for the very moment i have only ONE point that I BEG should be tackled BEFORE any RELEASE: Please, consider how you really want to call your libs and extensions wrt. filenames! What a nice plug, that even one of your core dev's had to find that the name of any lib had silently changed - and that from the name, that i think would be fine to the one that is, from my POV, not feasible to hold up. I'm still holding the upload of libgcp and wmh because of this reason. Call it libggiextwmh if you like that, but go for it. I really like the ideas behind GGI and how you do your project. I try to find a way to promote it's use wo. it having to become too professional. Soon even Debian/BSD might become a reality ... I really don't know what is so hard to understand about my questions and the cases that i bring up to you as The Project. I'm really sorry if i make you feel uncomfortable from time to time ... Again, i have my structures set up here so that i can put out _any_ of your libs in a short time, either from cvs or your tarballs. Getting it all right from Linux binary compatibility, shlibs issues, over Debian policies to the ggi project isn't the easiest thing to do if you pay 2 cents for each minute of internet connectivity. Besides getting the svgalib wrapper going, this is what i see as my part to give sth. back to you. But i know now, how much work it is to keep a ggi application going over time and i'm not willing to promote that to anybody who tries to get sth. else going too. /me now has to get sth. else going too, thanks for your time. Have a nice GGI, have a nice day, martin
