[Box Backup] Exclude lists

[Martin Ebourne]

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 00:11 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> ...
> >> Perhaps making a libboxbackup.so would be the way to go here, meaning
> >> that the only requirement for building the gui would be a working
> >> installation of box. It also helps clearly delineate between code with
> >> the two different licences.
> >
> > As a developer of DarwinPorts (a porting system), I'd prefer to see this 
> > approach. It would be better for the dependency checking if the GUI depended 
> > on a working boxbackup installation vs. building a built-in copy of the code.
> 
> Unfortunately I do need Box's headers as well as the shared library, and 
> since I have neither at the moment without a copy of Box itself, I am just 
> looking for permission to distribute Box (without changing its license) 
> together with my application.

If Box built and installed a shared library then it would of course also
install the header files required for using the functionality of the
library, so that really isn't an issue here.

>From an RPM packaging point of view this would work very well, mostly
because, of course, it's the standard way the shared code problem is
resolved on Unix systems, so all the tools work with it and the users
expect it.

Cheers,

Martin.