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

Re: Development packages.

* Scott James Remnant (scott@netsplit.com) wrote:
> If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared
> library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static
> library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the
> libxxx[N]-dev package.

Right, on Debian shipping the .la file isn't relevant.

> This is a requirement for most platforms, Linux is fairly unique in that
> its dynamic link loader is able to process dependency trees itself and
> load the dependencies of a linked library.

Right, not necessary on Linux, therefore crap on Linux shouldn't be
doing it.

> In user terms, this has zero effect; the dependency libraries need to
> loaded *anyway* so loading them earlier actually *slightly* speeds up
> load times of complex apps (esp. Mozilla and friends).

Pffft, with complex apps you're so unlikely to notice the speed
difference as to even consider it is funny.

> In Debian terms, it's slightly annoying; our "shlibs" tools don't
> realise what's going on and suggest more dependencies than are strictly
> necessary.  It can also cause annoyances during SONAME changes of
> libraries deep in the dependency stack.

Which I'm sure wouldn't affect users at all .. (sarcasm)

> There's already a fix for Libtool to ignore dependency_libs when linking
> shared libraries on Linux and the next major release should have it.

Then we'll just have to get people to move to that version, and get them
to turn on symbol versioning.

> The .la files then simply convey the required dependencies when linking
> a static library, which even on Linux requires you to link in all the
> dependencies manually.
> This user links statically a hell of a lot when debugging code; I assume
> I'm not the only one either.

I hardly ever statically link things, even when doing debugging.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: