Re: post-jessie: header only C++ library package (static?)
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 09:23:56PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hello,
> On 18 October 2014 17:19, Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This is about packaging around a header only C++ library package.
...
> > "header only C++ library package" seems to be more common.
As I see the replies
trie data structure of marisa (my problem)
large portion of boost (Dimitri)
STL (Dimitri)
seqan
Eigen
mpfrc++
mdds (parts of libvigraimpex)
rapidjson
> > Do we have some mechanism to track such situation?
> > If we don't, maybe we should have similar rules.
> >
> A large portion of boost is static only libraries. Similarly STL comes
> to mind as well. The danger in those are transitive API/ABI breaks,
> e.g. whilst compiling foo against newer template works, it becomes
> API/ABI incompatible with foo build against older template version.
>
> This is in part, why each new boost release is packaged with new
> name-versioned packages in debian.
I see. This also forces its depended packages to be updated when these
name-versioned packages are removed from the archive. Interesting.
Anyway, it seems we just need to be diligent to update depended packages
manually for now.
> I don't believe we consistently binNMU packages that build depend on
> templates only, simply by virtue that they are not caught/tracked by
> the binary transition tracker (or the auto-generator of thereof).
I see. By the way, I have never seen package using Build-Using in
debian/control which is documented in policy. Is there any automatic
way to set the used-source:Version of package used? Something like ...
Built-Using: marisa (== ${used-source:Version})
I can not find example stanza...
> Automatic API/ABI tracking should help here, as presented by me at
> Debconf 2014, but I haven't yet set that up.
URL?
Osamu
Reply to: