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

Re: Packaging a library when upstream does not build a .so

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:03:22PM +0000, Simon Huggins wrote:

> Is there a reason you need this now and can't wait until you've managed
> to argue for the shared library from upstream and cajoule them into
> producing a .so?
> I had an upstream that wasn't very confident with soname changes and
> went through a long process explaining that and the benefits but
> ultimately it was worth it.

Upstream will not be able to tackle shared libraries before an
unpredictable amount of time, which could easily exceed one year or two.
I am trying to help by sending him an up-to-date version of my libtool
patch after every release, and making myself available for any other
help that would be needed.  However, he is not evil; he has other much
more urgent things to work on.

In the meantime, should I:

 - not package the library, which is however very useful, and needed by
   other software that I have written and want to package
 - package the library only as a -dev built with -fPIC (but no one has
   endorsed that option so far)
 - package a debian-only shared library, taking advantage of the fact
   that API and ABI are rather stable, and have been for a year.  In
   that case, I need to figure out the best way to do it.



GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: