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

Debian binutils dependency policy


Do we have a plan or policy regarding packages which need to depend on
binutils-dev?  Is there now or will there ever be in the future a
stable binary api, by which I mean one that might be good for a year
or more of development on average?  In such a case, would binary api
compatibility be guaranteed by the soname of the shared library as
with other libs?  Could Debian consider maintaining old and new shared
lib versions to ease transitions, as with other libraries?

If the answer to the first question is no, then the only sensible
policy would appear to be that everyone fork and locally maintain
their own binutils snapshot for static linking.  This appears terribly
inefficient from a system design point of view.  On the other hand,
forcing a rebuild of gcl,maxima,acl2 and axiom on all platforms
because of a binutils change which might in fact be completely
innocuous is untenable as well.

gclcvs builds its own binutils shapshot -- perhaps I should make gcl
stable do the same as well before rebuilding the dependent apps.

Take care,

Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu> writes:

> Package: gcl
> Version: 2.6.7-3
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
> The gcl binary package depends on "binutils-dev (<= 2.16.1-999)", and
> as a result is now uninstallable in unstable where binutils is at
> version 2.16.1cvs20050902-1. Please fix gcl so that it's compatible
> with the current version of binutils.
> Thanks.
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: testing/unstable
>   APT prefers unstable
>   APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
> Architecture: i386 (i686)
> Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-3-32bit
> Locale: LANG=fr_LU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_LU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Camm Maguire			     			camm@enhanced.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Reply to: