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

Re: FYI: intent to NMU to fix SDL + static X extension library problem



On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:17:09AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
>   B. "Fixing" the SDL libraries is bad because:
>      2. We're supposed to close to a freeze, and the proposed fix
>         requires recompiling a lot of package (versus recompiling X
>         and 3 libsdl source packages).

Changing the static X libraries to be dynamic requires recompiling all the
packages that use them too.

Working out whether the X libraries should be static or shared is
something that should be done by upstream and the maintainer, who're
the ones who have to make sure that whatever solution is found works,
and who have to support it in the future.

Additionally, libraries with unstable APIs and ABIs are very painful
to work with (on a distribution level) when they're dynamically linked:
witness the number of packages not compiled with the right C++ libraries
for example (around 50 on most arches, which is 5% to 10% of all of them),
or the problems the steadily increasing libgal soname causes (half the
i386 gal packages are against an old version), or similar examples.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``Freedom itself was attacked this morning by faceless cowards.
     And freedom will be defended.''   Condolences to all involved.

Attachment: pgpn5bRnr9c1v.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: