Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The full description of it is in the logs of bug#35049.
It's a bug in libc6-dev which has since been fixed. If you look at the file libc_nonshared.a in slink, you'll find that the offending symbols didn't have the .hidden flag while they do now. > To get back to the policy proposal, I do think there are libraries > that should not have shared versions. Namely, ones that are not > yet at a point of their development where it makes sense to have > a stable binary interface. If Debian were to release a shared > version, that would mean picking a soname (and thus forcing upstream > to live with that soname, which can be annoying if they had a different > numbering scheme in mind), and it would mean changing the soname > for every upstream release. For some libraries that's just not > worth it. I would agree in principle. However, if a library was in such a state for an extended period of time, then I would start to question its status. > I also present publib-dev as an example of a library which currently > provides only a static version, but I will let its maintainer speak > for himself :-) I won't bitch as long as there is nothing on my system that uses it, or at least as long as I don't know about it :) -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
