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

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


Reply to: