On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:08:11AM -0600, Kevin Corry wrote: > On Monday 14 January 2002 17:13, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:02:19AM -0600, Kevin Corry wrote: > > > Just for reference, which version of LVM are you running, and which > > > version of EVMS are you going to try? 0.2.4 is our latest release. CVS > > > has a number of fixes since 0.2.4, and we are hoping to release 0.9.0 > > > real soon. > > > > Will 0.9.0 include the soname changes necessary for the Debian packages of > > EVMS? I'm eager to resume work on them. > > I have given versioned soname's to libevms and libdlist. I just made up > version 1.0 for dlist, since it should never change in an incompatible way. > libevms will use the current EVMS major number in its soname, unless we can > think of a better method in the future.
Great, this will do nicely for now. Thanks. > Thanks again for all the libtool work. I think for the time being, though, > that it's a bit much to add. I think once we get our 1.0 release out this > spring, I will revisit the libtool/automake setup as a post-1.0 addition. > For now we are just using -soname option to the linker to get the > appropriate versions set in the shared libraries. I completely understand. > Also, is it necessary to include versioned sonames for the plugin > libraries? As I've mentioned before, no executables should be linking > against these libraries - they are just meant to be loaded directly by the > core engine. I can add versions if necessary - I don't think it will break > anything - but it is not set up that way at the moment. Since no executables will be linked against these libraries (and they are not in the standard library search path), you are free to do pretty much whatever you want with them as far as naming. -- - mdz
