Re: Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:54:18PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2/18/2013 1:21 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 2) don't install a .so in a -dev package.
> 
> That might be a signal a human can understand, but the build system
> won't catch it.  The goal is to make sure the build system doesn't
> generate broken binary packages.

The no .so link would mean you have to explicitly link against the
exact version of the library. SOmething you would have to add by hand.
The build systems would not do that and -lfoo would fail. So this
would savely prevent any accidental generation of binary packages
linked against the lib.

But then I have to ask: Why have a -dev package at all? That only
makes sense if you intent other packages to be build against the lib.
And if there is even one package that is supposed to be linked against
it then you have to do things right.
 
> I think the .shlibs file is the way to go.  That way the build system
> either can make a strict version dependency, which at least makes sure
> the package is flagged as uninstallable when the lib is upgraded, or
> maybe something could be done so the build system throws an error
> telling you that you aren't supposed to be linking to this library.

Given that there is software that needs to be linked against it the
shlibs file seems to be the only sane option. Along with a better
communication between the two projects so they get along and maybe can
come to a more stable abi.

MfG
	Goswin