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

Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal



* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:20:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > libtool is broken in this regard and needs to be fixed to survive
> > missing files.
> 
> Then fix it instead of giving people bad advice.

Do you actually have anything beyond "libtool breaks otherwise, so it
*must* be good!"?  Here's some advice: rm *.la.  Yay, fixes the problem
*and* doesn't require everyone to add in dependencies that end up
pulling in hundreds of unneeded packages when trying to build something.

Yes, let's fix libtool.  No, I don't think we should screw over anyone
trying to do development because it's broken.

> > libtool's brokenness just isn't a good enough reason to introduce all
> > these -dev -> -dev dependencies.
> 
> The fuck it isn't.  I'm not going to sit back while you run around crippling
> our ability to rebuild the archive just because you have an aesthetic
> objection to libtool.  *The only alternative to having -dev packages for
> libtool-using libraries depend on the -dev packages of other libtool-using
> libraries that they need is to have all libtool-using packages build-depend
> directly on all of those indirect dependencies*.  Until you present us with
> a libtool that includes a fix for this misfeature, and convince maintainers
> to *use* it in their packages, these are the only two options that give you
> buildable packages -- and having packages build-depend on all the indirect
> dependencies has a *much* higher crap factor.

Last time I checked Debian was about technical excellence.  It's sad to
see people fighting against that.  I thought it was about choice too
but apparently that's not it either.

Remove the .la files, or put them into the library packages themselves
instead of in the -dev packages, or fix libtool.  Certainly there are
better ways to deal with this problem than adding in lots of
dependencies for -dev packages.  Packages need to be changed one way or
another, let's make the changes that make sense instead of letting a
single (admittedly broken) application dictate poor policy.

	Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: