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

Re: strict shlibs relations (Re: Accepted plib1.5 1.5.0-3 (i386 source)) (was: Bug#144668: plib1.5: shlibs are overly restrictive)

Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> cum veritate scripsit:

> > That's what one usually does with C++ libraries to avoid such problems.
> > Back in 1999, I tried this do and dropped the .so libraries from the
> > packages (which are not built by upstream but by me) and the result was
> > [bug #49648.]
> Well, if we're going to stick with the policy that rigorously, let's also
> nuke the xlibs-dev package because it also includes some development
> libraries in static form only :p

Yes, and I really dislike that situation where we have 
static-only libraries... There is no version-tracking 
information available right now. We have no way of knowing
which version of X statiic libraries a binary was built against.


dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: