Re: static libraries, dev packages and libc
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:43:37PM +1100 , Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I bring two separate issues here, please don't get them confused ;-).
>
> I have ideas on how these issues could be resolved, but want say
> anything just yet unless somebody can confirm that they really are
> problems...
>
> ISSUE 1
>
> Is it ok to compile a static library of a unstable system, and then
> move the static library to unstable to compile a binary?
>
> This is a bad idea for shared libraries because of the different
> versions of libc. What about static libraries though?
>
> The reason I ask is because apt-get 0.5.0 wants to upgrade
> libhsync-dev, which contains a static library, but not libc, so I was
> wondering if it should depend on libc or not.
this is the problem of libhsync0. libhsync-dev Depends: libhsync0
(=0.5.7-1), which is correct, but libhsync0 has NO Depends: -> problem
as nothing depends on the particular version of glibc
> My guess is that it is OK, since libc isn't linked until the binary is
> built. However, you could argue that it uses the libc include files
> from unstable. Is this a problem?
IMHO yes and big one
> ISSUE 2
>
> (you could argue this isn't really a problem, but I think it
> deserves consideration).
>
> I locally compiled certain libraries here for stable, eg libsasl, and
> installed them locally. (A similar situation exists for libldap2-dev).
>
> However, apt-get wants to upgrade libsasl-dev (and not libsasl7), to
> the Debian version. This is because:
>
> 1. libsasl-dev can be installed without upgrading libc.
probably
> 2. the version number libsasl7 installed is the same.
yes. if something has the same version (or lesser) as a package in the
archive and if same and something (install size??) is not the same as in the
archive, that it's upgraded as it thinks it's broken or what
> 3. apt-get realizes that the package is different (I think it must compare
> the md5sum or something).
see 2
> So, I could have the unexpected situation where the static library
> doesn't match the shared library.
possible, but that's your problem as no dependency prevents that. you can
always (and should) hold such packages
> I can't think of any real problem this would cause, just unexpected.
> If however, issue 1 is a problem, then issue 2 may become significant
> (as the static library was compiled on an unstable system).
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
cech@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Obviously the only rational solution to your problem is suicide.
Reply to: