在 2013-2-12 AM10:10，"Daniel Hartwig" <mand...@gmail.com>写道： > > On 11 February 2013 23:23, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > (First, "all mainstream distros" is only talking about Linux.) > > > > This .so=>devel does not make sense to me. I thought the point was > > that -devel split things that people who wanted to compile against the > > package needed, but not things needed to run. So if a .so is used by a > > program that has been compiled, then it needs to be in the non-devel > > package. I would expect that .so generally belongs in the non-devel > > package, and that the -devel package would have .a and .h. > > > > FWIW, BSD packaging systems do not have this -devel notion > > [Assuming a Debian-centric view.] > > To be clear, the “.so” files shipped in -dev packages are just > symlinks. The real “.so.X.Y” are shipped in the corresponding library > package, as makes sense. >
Yes, I'm talking about this *.so link. Not .so.X.Y > Nala Ginrut wrote earlier: > > This could be a real issue since almost all mainstream distros packaging > > policy force *.so be put in -devel packages. Though openSUSE/debian adds > > the exception for Guile, I believe it's so hard to do that for every > > packages uses Guile. > > What do you mean, “adds the exception for Guile”? Put that link .so in guile rather than guile-devel is the exception I mentioned. The regular packaging policy not allow it. The guile-2.0-dev > package contains the same /symlink/ as other -dev packages do. The real > .so is in guile-2.0-libs. I do not see how that is different to any > other library/dev package pair. >
