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

Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal

[once more, doesn't belong on -release...]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:11:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> > > * Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> > > > I'd like to propose, for new -dev packages, to 
> > > > name -dev packages after their runtime library counterparts.

> > > Uh, no?  The -dev packages have no need to match to a specific runtime
> > > library and this just creates unnecessary work.

> > Well, I will list the rationale; it might have been a bit 
> > of an abrupt mail for those who did not attend today's talk.

> > 1. usually -dev packages have a symlink to the shared library 
> > contained in the runtime shared library package.

> Uhh, this isn't a reason for them to have the major SO version in the
> name of the -dev package.

> > 2. The information of -dev packages depending on other -dev packages
> > cannot be automatically determined currently; 
> > it should be possible to obtain a minimal list by analyzing the 
> > NEEDED field of the objdump output.

> Errr, -dev packages generally don't (and shouldn't) depend on other -dev
> packages.  If you're trying to push the idea that -dev packages should
> depend on the -dev packages of libraries they depend on- don't.  That's
> *wrong*, it's the completely wrong approach and should *not* be taken.

It's more or less mandatory for libtool-based packages, due to a historical
misfeature of libtool; it's the only way to ensure static libs from any
particular -dev package are in a usable state; and it's essential when use
of the -dev package depends on the availability of headers from other -dev

That's not a very strong rationale for the proposed policy, but the -dev
dependencies themselves are (unfortunately) warranted.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Reply to: