Re: Compiling libbam.a from libbam-dev with -fPIC?
Le Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:23:39AM +0100, Stephen Gran a écrit :
> This one time, at band camp, Charles Plessy said:
> > Le Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 08:06:09PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:56:58AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > > as per Policy § 10.2, I would like to know if everybody agrees if I change the
> > > > libbam-dev package to compile libbam.a with -fPIC.
> >
> > > What are the reasons for not shipping a shared library? That's always
> > > preferred over use of -fPIC for static libs, so we should examine the
> > > reasons for this first.
> >
> > I forgot to mention that the upstream sources do not build a shared library.
>
> Is there some reason you as a maintainer can't? If the library has no
> API or ABI stability, that might be a good reason not to (although it's
> a better reason to talk to upstream about why they have to do so), but
> otherwise, why not just do it?
I started to write a message about to ask upstream why they do not make a
shared version of libbam, but I am blocked because I could not give good reason
of why Debian can not make -fPIC version of libbam. To my knowledge, libbam is
used by the samtools themselves, as well as the Bio::SamTools perl library. For
Bio::SamTools, -fPIC is definitely not a problem because the upstream README
mentions to use this option if necessary. For the samtools program, it will be
easy to prepare a version that is built against a non-fPIC libbam.a, but I fail
to understand why it is important since if upstream releases a shared version
of libbam, it will have to be compiled with -fPIC anyway, which makes little
difference between the situation we want to avoid and the situation we want to
recommend.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: