On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:27PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be provided > > for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. I > > wouldn't consider a library package which can't be used by any shared > > library > > to be releasable. Would anyone else? > It's a bit more complex than this, you can find a summary in > http://blog.bofh.it/id_101 . > In this specific case, the solutions should be (in order of priority): > - remove freecdb from the archive, since there are better replacements > (providing a shared library is enough to make them better, at least) > - make freecdb provide a shared library (which should be easy, and the > opinion of DJB is not really intersting not relevant for our purposes) > - make freecdb provide a PIC static library > OTOH, the last two points are almost a pointless exercise if there is no > actual shared library which needs to be linked against freecdb. vpopmail has one. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
