Re: strict shlibs relations (Re: Accepted plib1.5 1.5.0-3 (i386 source)) (was: Bug#144668: plib1.5: shlibs are overly restrictive)
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 11:56:34AM +0200, Philipp Frauenfelder wrote:
> > > > > > No. plib is a C++ library. I expect them to change the API in
> > > > > > the devel release (1.5.x are devel releases). This breaks binary
> > > > > > compatibility in C++. Therefore, the strict dependencies are
> > > > > > warrantable.
> > If it's that bad when it comes to compatibility, why not simply avoid
> > shipping the shared library and instead just provide the static library?
> That's what one usually does with C++ libraries to avoid such problems.
> Back in 1999, I tried this do and dropped the .so libraries from the
> packages (which are not built by upstream but by me) and the result was
> [bug #49648.]
Well, if we're going to stick with the policy that rigorously, let's also
nuke the xlibs-dev package because it also includes some development
libraries in static form only :p
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org