| > I suggest we ignore this LSB thingy and do what every other Linux
| > library currently does. This would mean:
| >
| > /usr/lib/libGL.so.1.2.<revision>
| >
| > ...with a symlink from:
| >
| > /usr/lib/libGL.so.1.2
| > and
| > /usr/lib/libGL.so
|
| You are certainly free to do this. The LSB doesn't prevent you from doing
| anything outside of the spec as long as it doesn't conflict with the spec.
Steve's proposal sounds like a reasonable thing to me and as far as I
can tell is exactly what is proposed in the LSB Shared Libraries and
Naming Conventions proposal (which oddly enough came from Debian).
The only addition I would make is the the DT_SONAME is libGL.so. The
point is that the more elaborate LSB proposals are trying to solve
versioning problems for incompatible libraries and OpenGL is
compatible so I don't see a lot of value in trying a more complex
scheme. If the LSB wants to layer something more complex on top,
they can do that later at their own pace, but it shouldn't take much
to convince vendors to go with the above scheme now. At least that's
the pollyanna view ...
How about a show of hands?
-db
