Hi!
Let me see if I can sum up this discussion:
1) Having a library named libdrizzle from the main package and another one
called libdrizzle that is installable by itself is just likely to lead to
version issues.
2) Having these as two different trees lead to a lot of
incompatibility/testing nightmares. This is why we combined them after
extracting them in the first place.
I am going to propose the standalone library be "libdrizzleclient" and the
one that is packaged with the server be "libdrizzle". "libdrizzleclient"
will be a pulled tree from lp:drizzle (so the code will be the same, though
versioning will be separated). This will resolve the issues with building
the server to get the library, but won't introduce new headaches for
package versioning.
We should recommend that end users develop against libdrizzleclient. We
still require libdrizzle to be installed as our client applications require
it (and are dynamically linked).
I believe this resolves all of the issues above (I am aware that the client
applications are a different issue, and that perhaps we should open that up
at a different point, as a different topic).
Cheers,
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
