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

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

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:16:54PM -0400, Josh Metzler wrote:
> 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.

Doesn't do a damn bit of good for the buildds.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: