[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Development packages.

* Frank K?ster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
> It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at 
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the
least.  First off- the section about -DEV package dependencies is *very*
wrong.  Adding unnecessary -dev dependencies is wrong and completely the
wrong solution to the problem of linking against multiple versions of a
package.  The package which is being linked in twice needs to be rebuilt
with versioned symbols.  You should *not* have a build-depend of:

Build-Depend: libpackage[SONAME-version-number]-dev | libpackage-dev 

That's not something we should ever advise.  As for the build-depend on
libpackage-dev- that's not just 'not optimal' it's *broken* and
shouldn't ever be used, if that's all the package provides then talk to
the maintainer and get him/her to fix it.

'How to fix upstream packages with somewhat broken SONAMEs' isn't really
accurate- it's 'How to brokenly deal with very broken upstream SONAMEs'.
Unfortunately, there's not much choice.

We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.

.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: