Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?
Nikolaus Schulz <microschulz@web.de> writes:
> Upstream has provided about half a dozen, separate utility packages, and
> at least two link against the said libraries. One could argue if these
> packages *should* be separate, but they are. So I guess the libraries
> aren't private package-wise, and this isn't possible, right?
While with non-free software you can't really change the binaries, you
definitely *can* change the packaging structure however you'd like. Does
it make sense to have six different packages? Or is this really one thing
that should be shipped as a single package?
> Also, it would be nice to package the libraries separately, since this
> allows to have as much of the GPL licenced code[1] go into contrib, and
> only the libs themselves go into non-free. But this runs into the
> shlibs problem...
Eh, I can see why this would be nice but I don't think it's a particularly
important feature. There isn't that much difference between contrib and
non-free in practice.
> I suspect there is no clean solution here; but I wonder what's best.
> What do you think?
I'm not sure I understand the situation well enough to really recommend
something. How big are each of these packages?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: