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

Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited



On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 08:56:14PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote:
> True enough, though your proposal might place more of a burden on
> future packagers of SDL-using (or libiberty-using, or whatever)
> applications and libraries.  I'm not totally sure it's reasonable to
> expect these people to know about the -pic packages and fix their
> configury to make use of them.

I'm certainly open to doing what I can to help educate package
maintainers on these issues, such as by writing a Policy proposal.

However, I expect the situation with the static X extension libraries to
be an exceptional and transient case.  (XFree86 does hear the clamor for
shared libraries.)  The main problem is that because both XFree86 and
Debian have release cycles measured in geological time, a transient
solution for us might persist for an entire release.

However, with a freeze and release stability in effect, there's no
reason to expect the interfaces of these extension libs to change and
thus disrupt SDL-based packages.

> Personally, I remain strongly of the opinion that those architectures
> which are unable to tolerate non-PIC code in shared objects should
> just fix their dynamic loaders and be done with it.

I might agree if I knew whether or not this was possible.
Unfortunately, I know little of the implementation details of object
loaders.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    A committee is a life form with six
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    or more legs and no brain.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpQndjMbBgqR.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: