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

Re: nonpublic shared libraries (repost; was: Re: dh_shlibdeps in = warnings; dh_shlibdeps out = cyclic dependency on self)

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 11:24 -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Is it still okay if the binary interface is not at all stable, or
> guaranteed to be compatible between versions?  I'm thinking of the
> case where a Debian packager adds shared lib support for better
> resource efficiency, but upstream doesn't implement it, and interfaces
> change at potentially every new release.

> It seem to me that there is no reason to requires libs to be in a
> separate package,

Felix doesn't. The runtime library has a shared version,
but it is NOT in a separate package because it is an 
undocumented implementation detail.

IMHO: Every package should be independently useful: my rtl
isn't so it should not be *permitted* in a separate package.

[BTW: perhaps this will change in a future release]

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: