On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:16:54PM -0400, Josh Metzler wrote: > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:10 pm, Steve Langasek wrote: > > But ok, yes, that is an option; let's spell the options out completely: > > > > - Don't ship .la files in the -dev package; don't depend on any other > > -dev packages except those whose headers you need. This gives optimal > > results for shared linking by pruning all unnecessary build-dependencies > > and dependencies; but it also screws over anyone trying to do static > > linking, who now has to go *recursively* hunt down the package name for > > each of the library dependencies, based only on the names of the symbols > > exported. (So why would anyone ship the static libs at this point...?)
> What about having the -dev packages recommend the -dev packages > corresponding to runtime dependencies that are built using libtool? That > way the archive scripts wouldn't install them without a direct dependency, > but aptitude or dselect would do so. Doesn't do a damn bit of good for the buildds. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
