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

Bug#980370: spirv-tools: shared library should be packaged like a shared library

On 18.1.2021 13.20, Simon McVittie wrote:
Package: spirv-tools
Version: 2020.6-1
Severity: important

If a package is linked to the libSPIRV-Tools-shared.so shared library,
then it will get a runtime dependency on libSPIRV-Tools-shared.so.
However, libSPIRV-Tools-shared.so is currently bundled into the
spirv-tools binary package rather than being packaged in accordance with
Policy §8.

libSPIRV-Tools-shared.so should be in a package named
libspirv-tools-shared. There should probably also be a libspirv-tools-dev
package containing the static libraries and pkg-config metadata. Ideally
both of those packages would be Multi-Arch: same.

Unfortunately, this will require a trip through the NEW queue.

libspirv-tools-shared needs to provide either a shlibs or symbols file,
as per Policy §8.6, so that ${shlibs:Depends} works correctly.
Unfortunately the form of the SONAME used by upstream (with no version
number) doesn't seem to be compatible with shlibs files, so I think there
is no choice but to use a symbols file. This is going to be annoying
because symbols files for C++ ABIs are not easy, but you could consider
having a libspirv-tools-shared.symbols.in file like this:

libSPIRV-Tools-shared.so libspirv-tools-shared #MINVER#
* Build-Depends-Package: libspirv-tools-dev
  (regex)".*" @DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM@

and generating libspirv-tools-shared.symbols by substituting
@DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM@, to get the equivalent of a legacy shlibs file?

If it cannot be packaged as a correct shared library for technical reasons
then I would recommend going back to it being static-only, which seems like
a lesser evil than having a non-Policy-compliant shared library.


Uh, the shared lib was supposed to be disabled in 2020.3-1, but looks like the build option broke since. But 2020.6 now has this merged:


which should allow building a proper shared lib, but still without versioning. I wonder what to do for bullseye, maybe force static like it's supposed to be and be happy for now?


Reply to: