On Sunday 05 March 2006 12:14, René van Bevern wrote:
[another improvement to the already pretty impressive dh-lisp package] ...
commented out, because there is (should be) a better way to handle it: each ECL binary links with libecl.so, so the ecl package -- once it comes into Debian -- should bring a shlibs description and dh_shlibdeps should better solve this dependency. In case somebody proves me wrong and it turns out that shlibs don't work well in this case, I can just uncomment this code. ;-)
This is still an open issue for the ecl port, which started working last Friday (it installs and creates a clc v5 aware ecl binary just fine). The libecl.so file is not a 'library' in a traditional sense in that it publishes an API that C programs can use. I assume there is a stronger connection between a ecl-generated program and the ecl version as a whole then what you would expect from the library alone. So does it make sense to have a separate libecl package? Groetjes, Peter -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|