Re: KDE 2.x and lt_dlopen_flag

[Nick Hudson]

Michael Matz wrote:
> 
> Ho,
> 
> On 8 Jun 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> > > Well, that incrementing actually was part of the KDE 2.0->2.1 (or 2.2)
> > > move, not by the addition of that variable.  Anyway that's a minor issue.
> >
> > As long as you use libltdl as a convenience library only, it's indeed
> > minor.  Otherwise, please rename the library, since it's a fork of
> > libltdl, and should have unrelated version numbers.
> 
> convenience only.  (although I heard, that *BSD tried to unify all
> libltdl's, high Nick ;) )

The reason I went down this road is that programs outside kdelibs use
libltdl interfaces. I note from a commit message of yours in the kde cvs
tree that this should NOT happen and KLib* should be used. I will
attempt to make this the case as it doesn't look as though the
lt_dlopen_flag is the right thing to do.

I don't remember seeing a response to the NetBSD/a.out KDE problem with
linking modules of the form foo.la. If I create patches do they have any
chance of getting into kde cvs?

Nick
-- 
aka address@hidden, address@hidden