On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > we have many packages which are build against popt. Some of them > have included a bundled (inlined) verion of popt. But they are using > Debian's libopt-dev like pkg-config.
Sounds like a bunch of bugs to be filed and info to be added to the security team's embedded code copies document: http://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies > Can someone please advise me on how to handle this. I don't find a > section in Debian's Policy which describes how to handle inlined > libs, which exist as a sepearte package as well. http://lintian.debian.org/tags/embedded-library.html http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-embeddedfiles > Does one know why some upstream developers are packaging popt > inside? The usual reasons are: It helps when porting to platforms that do not have proper packaging, repository and dependencies systems like Windows or MacOS X. They don't want users to have to go looking for dependencies when building from source. They think there are performance issues with dynamic libs that outweigh the disadvantages of static libs. They don't know or don't care about the disadvantages. > Are there any advantages to use inlined popt over libpopt-dev? For Debian there are only disadvantages to inlined popt in most cases. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6eib+-z1ekxhq9pjdnwlcbkn3sfjuoor+q8a+cm3em...@mail.gmail.com
