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

Re: libpkg-guide updated (versioned symbols), please proofread

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

Reply to: