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

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

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 07:06:34AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > - 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...?)

> > If we want to support static linking then let's break it off into it's
> > own '-static' package with appropriate dependencies.  Personally I don't
> > think it's really worth it and we should just go ahead and drop the
> > static libraries too.  It'd certainly make the -dev packages alot
> > smaller.  Maybe then we could just put -dbg stuff in the -dev packages.
> > :)

> That's the portion which was missing in your argument,
> resulting in your failure to convey information.

> You need to state 'drop static lib linking support from -dev package'  
> rather than 'libtool is broken'.

> libtool isn't really broken; it's just that static libs and shared libs
> behave differently.

No, libtool is moderately broken, as Stephen has pointed out -- it insists
on having dependent .la files present on the system when doing dynamic
linking, even though they shouldn't be needed.

> > > - 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.

> > We've had that discussion before.  Last I recall there wasn't really a
> > huge fight to keep them.

> Current situation is that we have removed the mandate from
> policy to require static libs, since some libs really don't work
> with static linking.

> However, it is still in policy 8.3. that if it exists, it will be 
> in -dev package.

> Having an extra -static package is rather drastic change,
> and I personally still do like the ability of being able to 
> do static linking.

I think static libs have outlived their usefulness in Debian for the most
part; but using this to justify creating whole *new* packages for static
linking would just be insane.  The dependencies of -dev packages are just
not that big a deal to warrant having to manage all of these new binary

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: