[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ITL release process
- To: Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: ITL release process
- From: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:10:44 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=WcL3y/sf17CHQ3it7jRdP5/nIRhku2T+MmEhICmnoSjCuffZRFNuvER5MwxvHIzVxzQh9UM61HSJMjulhac+oqGZnu31I/nNK12wT4BRulWjFCwAPxZF1CvRaIO+tmBh9aOY5fRute/m+EUHh5X97BqkQ2TiCpi4wDeTCXtucRk= ;
--- Thamer Mahmoud <thamer at newkuwait dot org> wrote:
> Samy Al Bahra writes:
> [...]
> > 3) The library naming scheme is incorrect. libitl-${VERSION}.so is not a
> > standard naming convention and will create conistency issues with
> > many systems for future ITL software.
>
> It is actually libitl.${VERSION}.so (i.e. with a dot), which is even
> worse.
>
> I see a lot of version numbers after the .so in Debian's
> "/usr/lib". Would something like this "libitl.so.0.0.6" be
> appropriate? Anyways, I've made this change in CVS and it is also
> easier to remove the all ${VERSION} info now.
I guess you can always create a symlink (libitl.so -> libitl.so.xxxx),
but then again I don't know what is normal. I'd guess having a single
installed libitl.so seems appropriate.
Salam.
- Nadim
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com