Re: fpLLL upload
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 16/03/2013 12:55, Tobias Hansen wrote:
> Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt:
>> a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to
>> the libfplll-dev package. Yesterday, I committed a fix to the git
>> repository for the package.
>
> We would not use the static library in Debian, so you don't have
> to provide it just because a bug requests it. I don't provide
> static libraries for any of my library packages.
>
> I think I originally stopped shipping static libraries, because
> the library packaging guide [1] suggests to avoid them. Since then
> I learned that this guide contains some bad advice (naming dev
> packages libfooX-dev instead of libfoo-dev) and errors (when ABI
> breakage is "fixed" by renaming libfooX to libfooXsomething and
> keeping the SONAME, libfooXsomething must not provide libfooX). The
> guide was removed from Debian for that reason. So I suspect that
> the guide may just be badly worded and should say "providing *only*
> a static library should be avoided".
>
> Anyway, I also saw other people removing static libraries from dev
> packages and I'm still comfortable with not providing them,
> especially for libraries that are not widely used.
>
> Any thoughts from other people on this?
I share your opinion. I prefer when packages are using shared
libraries. Therefor, when a changed is done on the library, the other
packages using it immediately get the changes.
Otherwise, they have to be rebuilt...
Sylvestre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlFEXc8ACgkQiOXXM92JlhBEQgCgxReKRC3yt79YMl7/MzSeWoM4
rGQAoIrTcLyqWXOn/zGOLIOegFMOFyCR
=4+E3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: