Re: Correct dependencies on libgnutls-dev? (#370387)
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006, Michal Cihar wrote:
> > If we were to force all binaries to link to one and only one gnutls,
> > then we wouldn't allow two or three gnutls versions in the archive at
> > the same time.
> It's not about forcing one gnutls version for all binaries but forcing
> one gnutls version for one binary. This is IMHO reasonable.
Yeah, I thought it was clear from context, I meant "each binary", not
all binaries. However, with this simple assumption, you end up to the
same conclusin. :)
Consider libfoo linked to libgnutls12 and libbar linked to libgnutls13,
how would you build baz which needs libfoo and libbar with such a
This would effectively force us to move to the latest gnutls version in
the whole archive.
> I just reported this problem as my sponsor refused to upload resulting
> package and I was not aware of anything wrong in it.
I think you can point your sponsor at this thread and suggest that it's
not important due to libgnutls using symbol versionning.
I also uploaded libsoup yesterday for a different reason, so it should
be using the latest version of libgnutls-dev in unstable, just like
your package, so the warning should disappear.
> Anyway moving
> libraries needed for static linkage to Libs.private would resolve
> shared libraries case as you most likely don't need direct linkage to
> gnutls while using libsoup.
Sure, I'm taking patches. :)
(Please reopen and retitle the report or file a new one as you prefer.)
Also, please note that this only looks possible because I didn't see
any #included headers from libgnutls-dev in the headers of libsoup-dev
(see pkg-config's #340904).
Loïc Minier <email@example.com>