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

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

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:31:09AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:55:36PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > 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.

> I'm not inclined to agree with even this.  libtool generating .la files
> isn't a justification to add a Depends any more than me adding a .sfrost
> file to my packages would be.  It's an informational file as far as I'm
> concerned, it certainly isn't necessary.

The .la files exist to remove the burden from application maintainers to
manually track the dependencies of the static libs they need.  This is a
worthwhile goal, and it makes sense for users to want this to be
reflected at the Debian package level as well; it just doesn't make
sense to make things more convenient for users of static libs at the
expense of much more common use cases.  Perhaps a Suggests: would be
appropriate here.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: