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.
HTH,
--
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