Hi, On 14.02.2015 13:31, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > I wonder what is the current state-of-art concerning the code in .a > library (archive for static linking). Should it contain PIC code? Normally, no. > Situation: Dynamic (.so) library needs to be linked against such (.a) > library. That is generally frowned upon. I do the same thing with vxi and librevisa -- I build the static library with PIC code and statically link into librevisa, and I justify that by the vxi code being generated RPC stubs that really don't need an extra shared library package. However, your case is different: a quick hack package without a stable ABI is the exact opposite. From a distribution point of view, it is difficult to track what version of a static library was linked, which is why we use shared libraries as often as we can. The slightly suboptimal solution for a library without a stable ABI is to use a version number in the SONAME, leave out the version from the package name and build a shlibs file that uses a dependency with a fixed version. This means that all packages using this library can only be upgraded together, but at least it doesn't introduce lots of NEW packages with every upload. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature