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

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

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:29:52AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> 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.

It doesn't exist; I think it's a great idea.  Perhaps a tool named
dh_libtool, which populates a substvar named ${libtool:Depends}?

FWIW, detecting a fixed libtool would be rather difficult, since it's the
libtool used by the depending application which does the recursion and
therefore needs to be fixed.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: