On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:55:36PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 04:33:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 04:52:35PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > -dev packages should *NOT* depend on other -dev packages unless their > > > public .h files #include files from those other -dev packages (which > > > generally shouldn't be the case). That whole crap was due to the lack > > > of understanding of the problem and blindness to the proper solution > > > (versioned symbols). The result is that it just makes things FTBFS and > > > doesn't actually fix the problem anyway. Not exactly useful. > > The reason for dependencies between -dev packages was libtool's failure > > to accomodate glibc's transitive dependency support, which is a separate > > issue than versioned symbols (though both contribute to the overall > > problem). > What about static linking? (the "other" role of -dev packages) If there are consumer applications that use libtool, and the library they're statically linking against provides a .la file, it makes sense for there to be dependency relationships between the -dev packages. In practice, since almost nothing in Debian gets linked statically, I'm not sure there's much ground for requiring a Depends: for this case alone. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature