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

Re: Development packages.

* Roger Leigh (roger@whinlatter.uklinux.net) wrote:
> Consider this situation:

Situations can be derived for anything. :)

> > Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies.
> > Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them.
> What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run unstable.
> These are very common situations, and you can't expect everyone to
> install unstable just to run my program.  I also don't expect every
> user to build over 30 libraries themselves.  Not everyone lives on the
> bleeding edge.

Honestly, if you can run the same binary anyway I think you should be
running a distribution which can handle dependencies.

> > Using [static libs] as an excuse to include .la files isn't valid
> > because .la files break other things.
> Examples, please?

Until libtool is fixed it breaks complex programs which are linking
against libraries which link against other libraries which use versioned
symbols (and therefore can have multiple .so's linked in at once).
It adds unnecessary dependencies to the dependency chain, which is 
very annoying.

> > This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I certainly hope you're not
> > trying to say we should ship not-stripped *anything* by default.
> Yup.  I'd like all my libs with debugging symbols by default.  Since I
> spend all day (and night!) writing and debugging software, this would
> make a lot of sense (for me).  Whether others would appreciate this is
> another matter ;-).

Keep dreaming..  -dbg packages I think are a good idea though, where


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: