On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> Are you seriously considering using the libfoo.lsb.N library naming
> convention? I sincerely hope not, I find it pretty amazing that the LSB is
> even proposing something like this. Is there something wrong with the
> standard libfoo.so.major.minor ?
The purpose of the .lsb.N syntax is to create a seperate namespace. Things
in this namespace have a guaranteeed functionallity. There are inconsistancies
in the existing namespace. Different releases from different vendors have
different .major.minor values. Most of the distributions also don't want to
be locked into having to provide a specific version of a library as that
stifles innovation. Most likely, the .lsb.N version of a library can be
implemented as a symbolic link to the more traditional .so.major.minor
name of the libary, at least until its behavior changes in an incompatible
manner.
One of the other alternative that was considered was to use the traditional
naming, but move them to another directory, like /usr/lsb/lib, but that
creates an entirely different set of headaches involving rpaths, etc.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
4711 North Powerline Road 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.938.0283 voice: 803.951.3630
fax: 954.938.1982 SkyTel: 800.405.3401
http://www.metrolink.com/
