Re: Bug#551775: bitlbee: Uninstallable package due to conflict with libc6
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 02:05:52AM +0000, peter green wrote:
> oops forgot to actually cc it like I said I would
>
>>> Does anyone know if there is any particular reason that bitlbee uses
>>> libresolv.a rather than libresolv.so ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes; the fact that Ulrich Drepper thought it'd be a good idea to declare
>> this API private and unsupported, claiming it's for internal use only,
>> even though it's documented in various places already, including IIRC
>> O'Reilly's DNS & BIND.
>>
> I can see that as a good reason for using the static version in upstream
> bitlbee. Nevertheless debian does appear to provide a libresolv.so with
> a proper soname and linking against it does seem to give sane
> dependencies from dpkg-shlibdeps so maybe it would be a good idea to use
> it in the debian packages. Ccing debian-glibc to see if they have an
> opinion on the matter.
While the API hasn't changed for a lot of time, it can changed at any
new version. Also the ABI can really change from version to version.
That's why packages using those symbols from glibc have a strict
dependency on libc6 (like libc6 (>> 2.9), libc6 (<< 2.10)) to handle
that. At some point it means that the package should be rebuilt against
the new glibc version using a binNMU. It is usually done more or less
automatically by the release managers. If not, dropping a mail to
debian-release@l.d.o to ask them is the best solution.
It means a bit more work when a new glibc version is introduced, but
I don't see that as a good reason to use the static version instead.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: