On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 06:51:28PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 10:29:59PM +0500, Alexandr Shadchin wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:14:52PM +0500, Alexandr Shadchin wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 05:05:59PM +0100, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:53:16PM +0500, Alexandr Shadchin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) reorder, cleanup and aligned in Makefile > > > > > > 2) add CONFIGURE_ARGS += --enable-unicode > > > > > > 3) fix replacement of ecl-config.1 on ecl.1 > > > > > > 4) remove create symlinks lib/libecl.so > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Alexandr Shadchin > > > > > Marc is currently working on an update for ecl, so you may want to > > > > > check after > > > > > his update what's still relevant of this diff. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Jasper > > > > > > > > > > "During times of universal deceit, > > > > > telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." > > > > > > > > This is a diff on ecl after updating to 10.4.1 (Marc commit today) > > > > > > Explain to me why the libecl.so symlink is no longer necessary. > > > > I understand the meaning of creating a symlink is in the following cases: > > 1) Library is located in a subfolder > > 2) Library has a different name > > > > with libecl it does not make sense > > > That's not an explanation. Did you try to use it ?
Yes. Also checked on the math/maxima. I do not see any reason to create a symlink, as without it everything is working fine. but this IMHO, I do not insist on its removal. if you need it for some reason, it can leave. -- Alexandr Shadchin
