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

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

* Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) 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)

I'm not a big fan of them.  Aside from that, however, forcing these
depends of -dev packages will generate FTBFS bugs in some situations
that would otherwise be fine (especially once most libraries have
versioned symbols).  At least, following the plan to include the SONAME
in the -dev package (which, as I mentioned in my other mail, may not
make sense going forward since it's really an API definition rather than
an ABI one...).  Another point is that you can link in the static
version of the library if you want without having to have the other -dev
packages installed (though, of course, if you want a completely
statically linked binary at the end you'll need all of them).

Perhaps a 'suggest' or a 'recommends' would be alright.  Of course, when
I think about what the definition of those are and compare it to what
people generally use a -dev package for (compiling other Debian packages
or locally built stuff and generally not statically linked stuff) the
best I can reasonably match it with would be 'Suggests' and even that's

Making it a Depends would mean that the vast majority of cases people
would end up downloading alot of static libraries (with that problem
getting worse and worse as we have more libraries depending on libraries
and whatnot) they wouldn't need.  If the static libraries were in a
seperate .deb then perhaps it could have a Depends so long as it was
expected that people only use static libraries to build static binaries
and not partially static ones...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: