Re: shlibs file changes proposal
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 07:53:11PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Because it's the right thing to do?
>
> Because even some free programs use shlib plugins without sonames and it'd
> be better to maintain compatibility than to break it simply because we
> would prefer to have sonames?
>
> Because the work has already been done?
>
> Because the change doesn't break anything but does add new features and
> abilities?
>
> Because it makes makes life easier for any maintainer who can not (for
> non-free packages) or should not (free packages with plugins where it's a
> good idea to maintain compatibility with 3rd party plugins) by not causing
> the package build to fail every time dpkg-shlibdeps is run on a binary or
> library which does something you didn't anticipate when writing that
> script?
>
> Because it makes dpkg-shlibdeps act more intelligently in such cases?
>
> Because the current way dpkg-shlibdeps mis-mangles ldd output and panics
> in the case of a library without a soname should be considered (yet
> anouther) bug against dpkg?
>
> Because nobody else has provided a better solution?
I work on GGI and Berlin stuff; both pieces of software are pluggable in
every which way. Lintian complains about lots of my packages because many
.so's included don't have sonames (and they aren't supposed to in most
cases). Wouldn't it be better to do away with this confusion?
If it's still needed, I second this proposal.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, our social contract acgnowledges the existence of
non-free software, even admits that it's necessary sometimes. Who are we to
dictate what others use? Shouldn't we distribute that software which we are
obligated to let into our distributions in as bug-free a way as possible?
--
..Aaron Van Couwenberghe... ..vanco@sonic.net.. ..aaronv@debian.org....
Berlin: http://www.berlin-consortium.org
Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org
There are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count and
those who can't.
Reply to: