2 versions of alogg

Hi all, Quoting myself from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188625 --- Before I forget the ugly name is because there are 2 alogg libraries out there, one which is called just alogg and one which is called AllegroOGG but still use alogg as soname. I hope we never need the other alogg otherwise I see a problem, but with this name atleast its clear which alogg this is: http://lyrian.obnix.com/alogg/ http://nekros.freeshell.org/delirium/alogg.html --- Thanks for the review! I've not imported this sofar, because the fact that debian has the other alogg packaged worries me, this means that the other one is used by some free software too, so sooner or later we will need to package it too. I think I'll just start packaging the other one right away so that I can find any conflicts now and come up with a resolution, before a bunch of packages depends on one or the other. --- So there we are 2 different ogg support for use with allegro support libraries both installing: /usr/lib/libalogg.so One of them installs: alogg.h And the other: alogg/alogg.h Which also seems like an accident waiting to happen. I'm thinking of solving this by: -give AllegroOGG a new soname: libAllegroOGG.so, or should I give them both a new name, and in that case what should I use for alogg? -putting all the header files of both in seperate dirs under include: /usr/include/allog/(alogg/alogg.h) /usr/include/AllegroOGG/(allogg.h) -modifying allog-config todo the right thing for alogg -use pkgconfig for AllegroOgg -patch AllegroOGG using programs to use pkgconfig. Currently only raidem can use AllegroOGG (I have a new version ready which adds ogg support as a replacement for the stripped out mp3 support, giving raidem its background music back). So does this sound like a plan if not, what do you suggest? Regards, Hans