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.
regards,
junichi
--
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: