Bug#100346: PROPOSAL] Do not mandate existence of shared libraries
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> The full description of it is in the logs of bug#35049.
It's a bug in libc6-dev which has since been fixed. If you look at the
file libc_nonshared.a in slink, you'll find that the offending symbols
didn't have the .hidden flag while they do now.
> To get back to the policy proposal, I do think there are libraries
> that should not have shared versions. Namely, ones that are not
> yet at a point of their development where it makes sense to have
> a stable binary interface. If Debian were to release a shared
> version, that would mean picking a soname (and thus forcing upstream
> to live with that soname, which can be annoying if they had a different
> numbering scheme in mind), and it would mean changing the soname
> for every upstream release. For some libraries that's just not
> worth it.
I would agree in principle. However, if a library was in such a state
for an extended period of time, then I would start to question its status.
> I also present publib-dev as an example of a library which currently
> provides only a static version, but I will let its maintainer speak
> for himself :-)
I won't bitch as long as there is nothing on my system that uses it, or
at least as long as I don't know about it :)
--
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: