ANNOUNCE: Xffm release
Edscott Wilson Garcia
edscott at xfce.org
Thu Jun 9 19:28:11 CEST 2005
El jue, 09-06-2005 a las 17:45 +0200, Marcel Pol escribió:
> Edscott Wilson Garcia wrote:
> >>Ok, your answer makes it rather clear to me. Just one question; if the
> >>libraries are libraries, shouldn't xffm open them with the full name,
> >>like libxffm_actions.so.2 instead of libxffm_actions.so?
> >Actually both "libxffm_actions.so" and "libxffm_actions.so.2" are just
> >symlinks to the real library "libxffm_actions.so.2.0.0". There probably
> >is a good reason for this, but I have no idea what it is.
> Usually the *.so file is used when an application gets compiled against
> the library. Then at runtime it it will load the *.so.2. I assume it's
> because at compiletime you don't know which SONAME is available on the
> system and you want it to be flexible. At runtime the application does
> expect a certain library version, so it can only load *.so.2.
> When packaging xffm for Mandriva the .so files were packaged in the
> libxffm2-devel package, while the *.so.2 files are packaged in the
> libxffm2 package. I could move the devel files in the normal library
> package, but it's not the way it should be.
I've currently changed the makefiles so that if debug is not enabled,
the *.so.2 for modules will not be installed, only the .so files. This
is already the case for the plugin modules like samba navigation. I
suppose this will fix the problem. You can check with
Edscott Wilson Garcia <edscott at xfce.org>
More information about the Xfce4-dev