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

Re: Correct dependencies on libgnutls-dev? (#370387)



        Hi,

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
 policy?

 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).

   Bye,
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>



Reply to: