[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Shlibs files and libfoo.so



On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
>   * Stalled for 2 weeks.
>   * Proposed by Joseph Carter; seconded by Anthony Towns and Aaron Van
>     Couwenberg.
>   * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
>     soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea is to detect such
>     packages and use "." for the soname in the shlibs file.

The objections to this consisted of:

Why should we add something useful to non-free software?  - Ian Jackson
Shlibs should have sonames.  - Joel Klecker

To Ian's objection, I cite the social contract which says we will provide
support and infrastructure for non-free software.  Unless he means to tell
me that anything that ever benefits non-free software should simply not be
done--which would be detrimental to the project considering how many free
softwares would end up crippled in the process.

To Espy's objection, I don't intend to provide shlibs without sonames.
What I'm doing is providing a way for dpkg-shlibdeps to be able to resolve
which package contains the library.  I don't intend to start distributing
shlibs without sonames, but I can't very easily relink a binary for which
I have no source---or even if I did have source (I've been writing a
couple of things that use glide to play with 3D until I can get mesa
working) I probably should not release them linked in such a manner they
will only run on a Debian system...

In the case of glide, binaries are usually linked against libglide2x.so,
like it or not.  I can make that a symlink to libglide.so.2 (and I have)
but dpkg-shlibdeps is still going to fail.


Other packages for similar reasons are built without dpkg-shlibdeps.  I
decided to fix this bug.  And now my bugfix is being stonewalled for
political reasons.  If those who oppose policy ammendments aren't willing
to stand behind their opposition, they should not be allowed to kill off
those ammendments by simply dropping out of the conversation and saying
nothing more.

And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem.  I have said I
would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea.  Simply not
using dpkg-shlibdeps isn't IMO reasonable, neither is hacking a binary.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>             Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77  8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* dark has changed the topic on channel #debian to: Later tonight: After
  months of careful refrigeration, Debian 2.0 is finally cool enough to
  release.

Attachment: pgpxw6g1SLaLk.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: