On 2011-04-17 19:14, Neil Williams wrote: > > Tollef? Any change in that since 2007? > > (I'm not expecting such a change as pkg-config doesn't do this for dynamic > linkage either, that is left to the package build system. As static is not > the default build for most package build systems, it's not unexpected that it > simply doesn't work in many cases. Too few people care, too few people to > test every single change in the dependency chain.) > > Is it possible to define an alternative .pc file which omits libva-dev and > libgcrypt? (Even if that means that libav itself needs different ./configure > options to be built that way). > > If not, maybe this just needs some documentation that static linking for this > package - and quite probably many, many others - simply does not work. It's > an upstream issue - does upstream care about static linkage? (I'm upstream > for a few and I frankly don't care about static linkage in those packages at > all. I haven't worked with other upstream teams where I can remember anyone > ever expressing interest in static linking either.) > > I think it is worth being realistic here. Assuring static linkage support in > Debian is, IMHO, simply not attainable for the vast majority of libraries. > It's not a fixable problem because not enough people care about it anymore. > Changes in static linkage behaviour are not likely to be an ingredient in any > Release Team considerations for testing migrations or stable releases, so > even if this was done once, it would break almost immediately. > > I also think the bug is from a mistaken viewpoint. There is nothing which can > be put into a .pc file to imply that static linkage is or is not possible. > pkg-config has a --static option but pkg-config doesn't attempt to verify any > of the strings it outputs, dynamic or static. > > Therefore, libav does not have a pkg-config file which implies possible > static linkage. Any package with a .pc file has an implied support for the > options which pkg-config supports but that support is only a bug if the > package concerned EXPLICITLY declares such support. All packages in Debian > can be considered to explicitly support dynamic linking via pkg-config if a > .pc file is provided - the same cannot be said for static. > > Packages cannot be blamed for lack of support for options made available from > tools when those options are not explicitly supported by that particular > package. > > Certain methods must be supported and, currently, that is dynamic linkage - > not static. > > IMHO unless every upstream package in the necessary chain states that static > linkage is supported by upstream, then static linkage is an "exercise left to > the reader" to solve and there's nothing to be done with bugs like this, > except possibly state in the packaging docs that static simply does not work > "out of the box". >
It seems I've missunderstod some aspects of the features of pkg-config. I assumed as there are Requires.private and Libs.private, that there was some way to specify that static linkage was not possible at all. Perhaps an bug on pkg-config should be open to add option to prohibit static linkage.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
