[Sorry for the lag.] Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> (2014-05-22): > Some time ago, I realized that espeakup-udeb needs to be rebuilt on > each new upstream libespeak upload, because libespeak needs an exact > match between the library version and the data version, and espeakup > is linked statically against libespeak. So whenever we get a new > upstream version of the espeak-data-udeb package, we have to relink > espeakup statically against the corresponding libespeak.a.
You might prove me wrong but I don't think that's happening a lot? How much of a hindrance is that? > Since this is an unfortunate thing, I considered rather linking > libespeak.so statically and ship it into a libespeak-udeb package, which > would thus be upgraded at the same time as espeak-data. Linking > a library statically is however way more involved: one needs the -fPIC > .o files of the libraries being linked in. It happens that libespeak > uses libsonic, libportaudio, and libjack. We could either > > - introduce libsonic-pic, libportaudio-pic, libjack-pic built with -fPIC > - introduce libsonic-udeb, libportaudio-udeb, libjack-udeb, and just use > normal dynamic linking. That would however eat more space. > > Currently, espeakup is about 470KiB big on amd64 > > A quick build of -Os versions of the libraries on amd64 gives: > > - espeakup: ~20KiB > - libespeak.so: 235KiB > - libsonic.so: 14KiB > - libportaudio.so: 165KiB > - libjack.so: 80KiB > > So it wouldn't eat much more space. So shall we go with introducing 3 > more -udeb libraries? It doesn't look to me that we need to do that work (and maintain stuff afterwards). Right now we have a cronned edos/dose job that looks for uninstallable udebs and let me know when situation changes (be it for better or for worse); so at least the detection side is implemented already, and we just need a rebuild when a new version comes up (hence my question above). Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
