Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> - 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.
If we do this (which I think we should for now), I would suggest that
we have a debhelper script analogous to dh_shlibdeps that parses .la
files to automatically generate -dev build dependencies, and that this
should also be fixed if libtool is fixed (and should detect whether it
is using a fixed libtool). Then maintainers of libraries that use
libtool will automatically get the -dev dependencies required to
satisfy issues with libtool now, and if/when libtool is fixed, those
dependencies can disappear automatically without having to have all
the maintainers go through a lot of trouble twice.
My suggestion doesn't solve the problem, but it does make it easier to
deal with. Maybe this already exists and I'm just not aware of it.
I've been thinking about writing this for a while since I maintain
several libraries that use libtool and have made the mistake of
forgetting a -dev dependency before.