[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ITL release process

--- 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.


 - Nadim

Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!