Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:10 pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But ok, yes, that is an option; let's spell the options out completely:
>
> - Don't ship .la files in the -dev package; don't depend on any other
> -dev packages except those whose headers you need. This gives optimal
> results for shared linking by pruning all unnecessary build-dependencies
> and dependencies; but it also screws over anyone trying to do static
> linking, who now has to go *recursively* hunt down the package name for
> each of the library dependencies, based only on the names of the symbols
> exported. (So why would anyone ship the static libs at this point...?)
What about having the -dev packages recommend the -dev packages
corresponding to runtime dependencies that are built using libtool? That
way the archive scripts wouldn't install them without a direct dependency,
but aptitude or dselect would do so.
> - Kill the .la files and .a files. Drop support for static linking. Not
> something that should be done lightly and without prior project-wide
> discussion.
> - Leave the .la files in place; -dev packages need to depend on -dev
> packages corresponding to those runtime dependencies that are also
> built using libtool. This is the status quo.
- Option 4 (requires volunteers): fix libtool
Josh
Reply to: