Re: Package separation/naming conventions
Jakub Wilk <email@example.com> writes:
> A -dev package should have a strict versioned dependency on all the shared
> libraries it provides .so symlink for.
This is clear, but means that the wcslib-dev would depend on libpgsbox4,
and therefore on pgplot5, which is not nice.
>> libpgsbox.a would contain references to pgplot5; which is non-free, old and
> Wait, you link *statically* to a non-free library? That'd make your binary
> package contain non-free bits, and as a consequence the whole source package
> would have to go to non-free.
No; it is just that libpgsbox.a has symbols that are resolved in
pgplot5. So, the library itself is not linked, but the user needs to
link libpgplot.a when he wants to statically link libpsgbox.a; which
means that the library itself is free but needs a non-free one.
> Also, now I notices that (at least according to your ITP), libwcs is licensed
> under the GPLv3+. We can't legally distribute GPLed software linked
> (statically or dynamically) to non-free stuff!
I will contact the original author to clarify this.
It seems that the easiest solution would be to remove the libpgsbox
stuff completely unless someone really needs it.