Re: Packaging certain libraries as "end-user software"
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:30:04PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> It's less of a library than an environment used for research. Compiling
> is just a required step to run your code, but applications are usually
> not distributed in binary form.
What is the benefit of providing a shared library at all? Why not ship only a
> >> and that do not have a stable ABI.
> > That is an issue. It means that upstream will either need to change the soname
> > a lot, which is probably not what they do, or that it shouldn't be a shared
> > library (but a static library instead).
> Changing the soname often is not an issue; it's just for Debian if the
> package name changes with the soname...
It's not a problem if the SONAME is changed a lot. The problem is that it
needs to change a lot and upstream may forget it. If programs need to be
recompiled before running anyway, I don't think there's a benefit in shipping a
> Note that Haskell also doesn't rename packages all the time, but instead
> Provides: a virtual package which name changes on ABI changes. What I
> plan to do is similar.
That is a good idea also when shipping only a static library.