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

Re: Dynamic linking against binutils libraries (again) (attn: doko)

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:57:02PM +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Since this discussion in 2005:

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg01085.html

> binutils has got a shlibs file that specifies a tight dependency on the
> current upstream version.  Thus frequent binNMUs of any packages linking
> dynamically against libbfd or libopcodes are needed, or those packages
> will hold back binutils from migrating, as is the case right now, but
> there should hopefully at least be no breakage.

> I just want to check that the prohibition in the package description of
> binutils-dev ("Note that building Debian packages which depend on the
> shared libbfd is Not Allowed") is still in force and that doko hasn't just
> forgotten about it.  In that (former) case I'm volunteering to fix the
> offending packages (lush and nitpic) and close the bugs my friend Niels
> opened.

> (It does seem a bit pointless to help packages that link dynamically that
> much if it's forbidden, but on the other hand binutils is definitely not a
> proper library package.)

I don't think there's been any change wrt the prohibition on dynamic linking
of libbfd, and I wonder why these packages are doing so.  I think fixing
those packages to link statically is the right thing to do.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: