Re: packaging questions
email@example.com (Sue Campbell) writes:
> To further complicate matters, files are often duplicated (or
> have slightly different versions) in more than one place.
> Also, some of the source is only available as a shell archive.
> As you can see, it is a bit of a mess and makes me want
> to totally ignore Debian policy and simply make packages as
> if they are original Debian packages, i.e. no .diff files.
Well, I have a small package (jgraph) that's a shell archive that
unpacks into the current directory (ugh). It's handled by just
creating a tarfile of the unsharred source and calling that the
upstream source. It's really no different (if a little more severe)
than the other stuff we to to handle badly behaved tarfiles.
> The second issue has to do with shared and static libraries.
> Since this code is primarily used by people doing research,
> everyone will be compiling their own executables.
> Also, most people would either want to use static libs to
> get that tiny bit of extra speed or couldn't be bothered
> learning how to create executables linked against shared libs
> (if this sounds crazy to you then you've never been to graduate
> school in engineering).
I'd say only create the shared libs. What's hard about linking
against shared libs? Isn't it just (-lwhatever)? And most likely the
RAM benefits of shared linking (especially if the user(s) are going to
be running multiple apps simultaneously using these libs) will improve
performance more than using static libs might (just my guess).
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .