On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:57:02PM +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > Since this discussion in 2005:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg01085.html > binutils has got a shlibs file that specifies a tight dependency on the > current upstream version. Thus frequent binNMUs of any packages linking > dynamically against libbfd or libopcodes are needed, or those packages > will hold back binutils from migrating, as is the case right now, but > there should hopefully at least be no breakage. > I just want to check that the prohibition in the package description of > binutils-dev ("Note that building Debian packages which depend on the > shared libbfd is Not Allowed") is still in force and that doko hasn't just > forgotten about it. In that (former) case I'm volunteering to fix the > offending packages (lush and nitpic) and close the bugs my friend Niels > opened. > (It does seem a bit pointless to help packages that link dynamically that > much if it's forbidden, but on the other hand binutils is definitely not a > proper library package.) I don't think there's been any change wrt the prohibition on dynamic linking of libbfd, and I wonder why these packages are doing so. I think fixing those packages to link statically is the right thing to do. HTH, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
