On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:26:12PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:07:33PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > > Why was this rebuilt with libdb2-dev ? Shouldn't we be trying to > > > get things to db4.1 at this point ? I'd think db3 at a minimum. > > > This isn't just idle curiosity either, SASL impacts MANY packages - > > > most MTAs and anything using OpenLDAP. > > > If we don't agree on a minimum, or at least a preferred lib... we're > > > going to have packages linked against 3 different levels - not fun > > Hello, > > Actually it is much simpler, many packages are simply not compileable > > anymore: > > libldap2-dev depends on libsasl-dev [1] > > libsasl-dev depends on libdb2-dev (>= 2.7.7.0-7) [2] > > libdb3-dev conflicts with libdb2-dev > > [1] introduced in response to #164791 > > [2] introduced in response to #168993 > > libtool strikes again, quoting from the report > > | /usr/lib/libsasl.la contains -lpam as a dependency, so -lsasl can't be > > | linked using libtool without libpam0g-dev being installed. > > This hits almost anything linking against libldap2, including postfix > > (db3), apache2 (db4.1), xemacs21(db3), sendmail (db3), KDE (db4.0), > I'm going to prepare a new NMU in which libsasl-dev has that > dependency changed to "libdb2-dev | libdb-dev", which should satisfy > the libtool issue while still allowing libdb4.0-dev, etc. Hopefully > because of the versioned symbols in libdb2 this won't result in > breakage. Whether or not it results in breakage, it still compounds the libtool-induced problem of linking against libraries that aren't needed. If you allow this dependency to be satisfied by any version of libdb-dev, we may end up with binaries for applications that don't directly use libdb *at all* being linked against an extraneous version that happens to be on the system at the time. A much saner solution would be to simply stop shipping the .la file in libsasl-dev. Its only reasonable application on Linux systems is for static linking, and even there it's a convenience, not a necessity. Since Debian doesn't ship statically linked binaries (with few exceptions), and few users are likely to be statically linking libsasl anyway, I think this is the best choice. Note that OpenLDAP 2.1 currently uses the .la file (via ltdl_open()) for dynamic loading of libraries, but I think work is being done to correct this unnecessary dependency as well. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpH5RZbUa3FF.pgp
Description: PGP signature