shlib naming (was Re: OpenJade 1.3pre1 (Beta) Released)

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