[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#100346: PROPOSAL] Do not mandate existence of shared libraries

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:

> > In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
> > and a shared version.  I don't think this is appropriate, as there 
> > are programming languages whose shared library support is still
> > evolving.
> > The whole discussion in this section seems to be quite C-centric.
> I would object against any weakening of the policy which allows packages
> to provide .a's without corresponding packages with .so's.

This means that the current GCC 2.95.x package is not conforming to
the policy because it doesn't provide a shared version of libgcc.a,
and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked

> If the libraries that you're referring to aren't .a's then this section
> doesn't even apply.

Of course ,these languages use the standard object file formats.  They
simply do not support shared libraries well (think of the fragile base
class problem, or the effect of certain forms of name mangeling).

Florian Weimer 	                  Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/
RUS-CERT                          +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898

Reply to: