Bug#83669: Shared libraries
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:34:07PM -0600, David Engel wrote:
>
> I think this would be more trouble than it's worth. Not only would
That's probably true.
> packagers have to deal with all of the possible overlaps between
> packages, it would also potentially add even more packages to the
> archives.
I thought that Ian's proposal was aimed at allowing such disparities to
exist rather than (necessarily) having them in one distribution. So in the
case of libc6 2.1 and libc6 2.2, potato would have libc6 and libc6-dev
2.1 while woody would have libc6 and libc6-dev 2.2. Having his scheme
would allow you to upgrade your libc6 to the woody version while maintaining
the libc6-dev from potato.
Under the scheme that I described, the same thing can be achieved without
having two versions of the same library existing in either potato or woody.
> > 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.
Yes, but this requires changing dpkg-shlibdeps. Besides, it's not exactly
easy to figure out what -L flags were used during the compile and hence find
the correct .so file.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: