On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:30:04PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > It's less of a library than an environment used for research. Compiling > is just a required step to run your code, but applications are usually > not distributed in binary form.
What is the benefit of providing a shared library at all? Why not ship only a static library? > >> and that do not have a stable ABI. > > > > That is an issue. It means that upstream will either need to change the > > soname > > a lot, which is probably not what they do, or that it shouldn't be a shared > > library (but a static library instead). > > Changing the soname often is not an issue; it's just for Debian if the > package name changes with the soname... It's not a problem if the SONAME is changed a lot. The problem is that it needs to change a lot and upstream may forget it. If programs need to be recompiled before running anyway, I don't think there's a benefit in shipping a shared library. > Note that Haskell also doesn't rename packages all the time, but instead > Provides: a virtual package which name changes on ABI changes. What I > plan to do is similar. That is a good idea also when shipping only a static library. Thanks, Bas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150719021020.gv8...@fmf.nl
