On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
I think I have understood you. So, in this case I am showing I don't need
the
symlinks of type libfoo.so.X because the SONAME is itself the
libfoo-x.y.z.so.
yes.
Thanks for confirming this.
If you have
* Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 22:43]:
Hi Bernhard,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 16:52]:
I'm maintaining a library which new upstream version is creating at build
time
* Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 16:52]:
I'm maintaining a library which new upstream version is creating at build time
*.la, *.so (development symlink), and the library itself with the form
libfoo-x.y.z.so but not their symlinks that match their SONAME (I was
expecting
Hi Bernhard,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 16:52]:
I'm maintaining a library which new upstream version is creating at build
time
*.la, *.so (development symlink), and the library itself with the
4 matches
Mail list logo