Re: Packaging sysfsutils: static library?
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:05:11AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello everybody!
> Today I read about the upcoming architecture for kernel device files
> . devfs is already marked obsolete (what a pity, I really like
> it...) and will be replaced by an userspace daemon udev.
Me too, but I guess I'll have to see how udev looks. How does it look
like? Will it retain compatability with the devfs device names?
> Since this is stuff that will still change frequently and it is not
> used by real applications yet, I think it is sensible just to ship a
> static library and the two programs in a single package "sysfsutils"
> now. When the interface stabilizes and the library comes to real use,
> I would provide the full set of shared library, -dev and -runtime
You do not have to have a seperate -dev and -runtime package if the
library is small, especially if it is not used by many applications.
> Is it reasonable to provide just a static library? Policy 8.3 allows
> it in principle, but since I'm not very experienced at this, I would
> welcome any suggestions and your opinions.
Sure, but is it always nice to have a dynamic library if more than
one program is going to be using the library.