Bug#83669: Shared libraries
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:04:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Can we say archive, system, mirror and update bloat horror!? DO you
My very rough estimate would be about 300 MB per distribution. Not
insignificant, but not completely untenable either.
> This is bad, and creates plenty of problems due to the inconsistencies
> you create. If we encourage maintainers to link against libraries for
> which they cannot test the runtime, then you are asking for plenty of
> untested packages ending up in the distribution.
Not necessarily. In Ian's proposal, the -dev package can never be
newer than the run-time package. This means the newly built program
will always be run with the library of the same or newer version. We
already have to support this situation anyway.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:05:14AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> > /usr/lib/libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.2
>
> How about
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.2.1
> and allow shlibs with different minor version numbers to be installed
> together by encoding it into the package name. Of course, we'll have
> to manage /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 dynamically as well.
I think this would be more trouble than it's worth. Not only would
packagers have to deal with all of the possible overlaps between
packages, it would also potentially add even more packages to the
archives.
> This would require changing how dpkg-shlibdeps works though.
Perhaps not. Most situations could probably be handled by simply
moving the .shlibs files from the run-time packages to the -dev
packages.
David
--
David Engel
dlengel@home.com
Reply to: