Phil Brooke wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> Since AdaCGI is a library, it must consist of two binary packages: >> libadacgi-dev and libadacgi1. > > No, I disagree. I see no benefit to users in making such Debian-specific > changes. See end of email.
[...] > I'm happy to be convinced otherwise about (not) converting the package > to multiple binaries. However, I don't see any significant benefit at > this time. If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to provide the .gpr file and the source and .ali files in their proper places, but you would still provide the object files in /usr/lib/ada/adalib/adacgi/*.o, right? The pro of this proposal is reduced complexity, both for you and for users (one package instead of two). The con is a lack of consistency with other library packages; both in the naming scheme for packages, and in that it would be impossible for users to pass "-ladacgi" to the linker. Maybe you could mitigate that with linker options in the project file. Also the lack of a shared library means users have no option but to link statically. I think that it would still be a good idea to at least compile adacgi with -g, per general Debian policy. I don't feel very strongly one way or another, because the small size of adacgi excuses it for not being a honest-to-God shared library :) > Do any other distributions do this to adacgi? No, but then again, AFAIK no other distribution carries adacgi; not even Gentoo and not even FreeBSD :) so, Debian leads the way once again :) -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
