Dr. Rene Hexel wrote
> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 21:42, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> 
> > I suggest you look at PR 16354 and the following discussion.
> 
>   Ah, I missed that indeed, thanks Al!
> 
>   I'd like to go along with what Johnny said in the PR.  The only sane
> way to go is probably to name the aalib libraries differently if they
> are ABI incompatible.
> 
>   The best way for gphoto2 is IMHO to split it into two different
> packages as well (that might or might not conflict with each other). 
> Otherwise we end up with all kinds of havoc with binary packages that
> have the same name but link against different, incompatible versions of
> aalib.

gphoto will compile and run with both libraries. It only needs to be
able to detect which one it is using including the x11-buildlink.mk in
case of aalib-x11. There is no need to split this package. 

Perhaps we need something that tells the building process how to
generate binary packages for both variations. This may also
help in cleaning up the mess for packages that currently come in various
mutations.

cheerio Berndt
-- 
Name    : Berndt Josef Wulf            | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail  : wulf@ping.net.au             |    tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ     : 18196098                     |  VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia 
URL     : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.5    | BBS  : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc