On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Jon Leech wrote:
>
> > Thus the libGL.1.2.lsb.1 name, albeit ugly, is IMO the way to go.
> > Stuart, is this in fact the proper name under the LSB conventions?
>
> It should be libGL.lsb.1. (lsb.1 implies the actual function list, version
> of the spec, etc).
But we will require a symlink from libGL.so - right? (Or is it
that the funky Linux linker can figure out that '-lGL' means
libGL.lsb.1 - or whatever?)
> > Is there anything else relevant about LSB library naming/placement?
>
> The run-time library will live in the usual place, /usr/lib. We do not
> specify how it is implemented (could be as simple as a symlink).
>
> I am still working out how to get the LSB DT_NEEDEDs in an application. The
> two approaches are 1) a mklsb tool that goes in and changes the dynamic
> section of an executable, or 2) a special set of libraries that you have to
> link against that has the right name built into them.
This sounds rather ugly - could you explain?
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
