Dirk Eddelbuettel writes: > > On 23 June 2007 at 18:18, Andreas Barth wrote: > | * Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070623 17:52]: > | > That looks like something I should indeed do for libgsl, given that there > are > | > loads of packages depending on libgsl. > | > > | > Now, I am still calling this libgsl0 even though GSL long pass the 1.0 > | > version. Should I switch at the same time, or simply avoid confusing at > and > | > just append the 'ldbl' ? > | > | If you do it compatible, there is no need to change name. > > Well now I am being confused about the 'do it compatible' part. Matthias' > inital mail didn't actually suggest anything but to rename. So I jump to a > new library name reflecting both the long-overdue post-1.0 of libgsl (which > didn't change its API so I didn't need it then) and the fact that this is a > post-glibc-2.5 build, then I should be fine yet be able to avoid the ugly > 'ldbl' suffix.
beeing compatible means to provide symbols for both the ldbl64 and ldbl128 in the same shared object. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
