Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtcd - Tide Constituent Database Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211623 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-20 20:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > No, David Flater is the maintainer of both. Actually you are true. > > > In this html, upstream considers the case that people want to > > seperate libtcd. > > Still, upstream does not ship a shared library, maybe never will do so. However providing shared library, not static is preferable. > How does the DSO versioning scheme you've invented relate to libtcd's > versioning scheme? Sorry, but what is "DSO"? > > Where do you see that libtcd 2.0 and 2.1 are incompatible? I have re-checked the header files and they are _COMPATIBLE_ . I agree with the name libtcd.so.2.1.3 . > With every update of xtide, will you check whether the included libtcd > contains changes? Of course. Actually some changes have occured with xtide without the part of libtcd unchanged. > And then split it off, build the library packages first, > and only then build utils and xtide? I think this is not a bad idea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review