Le Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:21:37AM +0200, Vincent Danjean a écrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 09:49 +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > >> I started to write a message about to ask upstream why they do not make a > >> shared version of libbam, but I am blocked because I could not give good > >> reason > >> of why Debian can not make -fPIC version of libbam. > > > > You can build a libbam_pic.a and that is really not a problem. However > > it would be much better, for security support among other things, to > > build a shared library instead. > > For upstream information, the problem with static (with ou without -fPIC) > libraries is that, if a security (or other) bug is found, you need to > recompile *all* the packages that use this library instead of just the > shared library. This is why distributors like Debian prefer dynamic > libraries instead of static ones (unless there are other very strong > arguments).
Here is my current plan: - Open a RC bug on samtools to prevent testing migration. - Upload a new samtools package where -fPIC is enabled. - Upload libbio-samtools-perl to NEW. - Open a RC bug on libbio-samtools-perl prevent testing migration after it is accepted. This way, these packages will not be a burden for others. Also, I doubt that anybody will be interested in the Squeeze version in 2011 or even late 2010 as they are young and fast-evolving programs. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
