Subject: shlib naming (was Re: OpenJade 1.3pre1 (Beta) Released) From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:20:01 -0500 |
I must again strongly point out that we oughta to change the shared library names in OpenJade so they don't conflict with Jade's. This is needed since OpenJade is a different product than Jade. So usurping Jade's shared library names is a bad idea. This is especially problematic for me as the Debian packager. I must either remove the shared libraries entirely (i.e., static linking) or else consider Jade == OpenJade. (Technically, one package can "provide" another package, but since we don't have versioned depends in this case, providing/replacing shlibs, which are always versioned, won't work). I suggest the names be libopenstyle, etc. BTW, I know that many do consider that Jade is in fact just the upgrade of OpenJade, but if this was really so, James would have passed the Jade baton to us, and thus it would be just "Jade" rather than "OpenJade". No, what James did was give us permission to fork, which is another matter. As a forked package, theoretically, both Jade and OpenJade could be installed on the same system. Thus, the libraries they provide should be named disctinctly, so they can peacefully co-exist. BTW, it could also be argued that we should rename our commands, e.g., jade to openjade, nsgmls to opennsgmls, etc. -- .....Adam Di Carlo....adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
OpenJade 1.3pre1 (Beta) Released, Avi Kivity | Thread | Re: shlib naming (was Re: OpenJade , Karl Eichwalder |
mode/with-mode, Joerg Wittenberger | Date | Re: Jade validation options, Aad Kamsteeg |
Month |