Re: Uncertain ABI with libags and GSequencer
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:54 AM, James Cowgill <jcowgill@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:46 +0200, Joël Krähemann wrote:
>> I'm the developer of Advanced Gtk+ Sequencer or for short gsequencer.
>> Now I would like to provide following libraries in a non-standard
>> location like /usr/share/gsequencer.
>>
>> * libags
>> * libags-thread
>> * libags-server
>> * libags-audio
>> * libags-gui
>> * libgsequencer
>>
>> I think that libgtk-2.0 initially did the same in its early years
>> about 15 years ago. Are there any documents or guidelines to provide
>> libraries for debian GNU/Linux? And what if I can't guarantee ABI
>> conformance, yet?
>
> Firstly, you should use /usr/lib/gsequencer as the proper place to put
> private libraries. /usr/share is for arch-independent files only.
>
> As long as they're private, you can do pretty much what you want with
> your libraries. Other Debian packages must not use them however.
> Breaking the ABI is also not an issue (for Debian at least).
>
> If you ever want to move them into a public directory you would need to
> give them a proper SONAME and make sure the ABI isn't broken regularly.
>
Yes, this is my intention to provide in a public directory once it reaches the
release 1.0. So libags-1.0.so would be a proper SONAME?
>> What about providing static linked GSequencer since I use it to debug
>> the application?
>
> Are you talking about fully statically linked (including static libc
> etc) or just statically link against your libraries?
>
I didn't have set the priority to investigate the issue but this is
related to the
current Makefile.am. I'm using *.la libaries what gdb or valgrind can't handle.
> Using static libc is not allowed except in special circumstances. If
> it's just your private libraries then you are free to do that if you
> want. Is it totally nessesary though? Why can't you debug your
> application when it isn't statically linked? Is such a package actually
> useful to other people?
>
> James
Joël
Reply to: