Re: Depends on -dev package
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [110822 21:47]:
> > and given that C -dev packages are unusable in general without libc6-dev
> > installed, that would, on the surface, seem to qualify.
> If you compile a program, you will usually need libc development files
> anyway, so having them around is not really a new requirement (just like
> having a compiler).
I disagree. Having them around is a direct requirement of using the code
in the -dev package. The users code may not require those development
files and (if, for example, the user installed gcc and does not install
recommends) the user may not have installed them with the compiler.
As for the compiler, I believe that is a different case. A user expects
to need a compiler and does not expect the package manager to install
one for them. However, the use should and will expect that the package
manager installs the dependant -dev packages (including libc)
> There is also not really a way to express what you
> need, as there are so many of them, you either need libc6-dv or
> libc0.1-dev or libc0.3-dev or libc6.1-dev or perhaps of the multilib
> files and so on.
If your usage requires a specific implementation, depend on that,
otherwise there is the libc-dev virtual package to depend on.
As a quick side note, the libc-dev packages actually do recommend a
compiler (gcc | c-compiler) which is not something I think is necessary,
but I don't see any harm in it.
Also, my opinions here are not to suggest a MBF on -dev packages that
use, but do not depend on, libc-dev. They are simply to point out what I
believe is the correct behaviour
-
Kyle Willmon
Reply to: