On 2016-04-11, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> What uses require PIC static libraries that cannot be satisfied by building
> -static --whole-archive ?
Linking a static library into a dynamic library.
/Sune
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hello!
This is a borderline RFA/RFH. I've already packaged storaged, which is
a fork of udisks2 but more targeted at supporting advanced "enterpricy"
storage solutions. It's currently sitting in experimental, since I don't
have time to properly maintain it myself an
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 06:44:45AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
>
> On 10/04/2016 23:08, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> > The only use case I could imagine
On 10/04/2016 23:08, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>>
>> On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> > The only use case I could imagine is to create an executable that can
>>> > run outside of Debian.
>> Static builds a
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Binding *is* lazy by default, but loading of NEEDED libraries is eager
> since ELF dynamic symbol references don't say which library they're
> expected to be resolved in (perhaps the best *and* worst feature of ELF
> dynamic linking). If we
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Maybe it's time to acknowledge that it's mostly busy work at this
> point and packages could be authoritative for this kind of information (and
> handle NEW with a simple list of packages).
I expect the ftpteam will want to put things in NEW
On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 13:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> The major place where this breaks down is with shared
> libraries, since, due to how dynamic linking works, even shared libraries
> only used in specific dconfigurations have to be listed in Depends. But,
> because the shared library m
On 04/10/2016 06:05 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Milan Kupcevic , 2016-04-10, 16:51:
We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking
are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good
reason to do so; when requested by users or when there is some other
Mike Hommey writes:
> That's the funny part. Some use cases require non-PIC static libraries,
> and others require PIC static libraries. Should we then ship both? I
> think we can all agree that would be terrible.
Actually, if the library is needed in both forms, it's not that bad of an
idea.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
>
> On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The only use case I could imagine is to create an executable that can
> > > run outside of Debian.
> Static builds are still common in (parts of) scientific co
* Milan Kupcevic , 2016-04-10, 16:51:
We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking
are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good
reason to do so; when requested by users or when there is some other
No, we should not.
+1
A lintian check should suffic
On 2016-04-10 07:08, Ole Streicher wrote:
Jakub Wilk writes:
* Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost
*all* packa
On 04/10/2016 12:15 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:13:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking
>> are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good
>> reason to do so; when requested by users or when the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <
h...@debian.org> wrote:
> 1) make it clearn that static linking is to be used only when strongly
> justified (e.g. system rescue tools like sash).
>
>
As I see it, static libraries are mostly meant for the end-user, not for
distribut
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Russ Allbery
>> I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary
>> package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack
>> of a better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends
>> processing for anything below th
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 08:34:18PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Question is wich information they cover. For me, "optional" means:
>> conflict free by policy.
> You are still mixing two completely separate things.
Which?
>> > One of the other reasons is dh_make(1).
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:13:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking
> > are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good
> > reason to do so; when requested by users or when the
]] Russ Allbery
> I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary
> package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack of a
> better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends
> processing for anything below the shallow dependencies in the t
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:24:55AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> You can also behave like many packagers do: don't pretend that optional
> and extra priorities are different and that the policy (still) has
> different requirements about them. I don't see any downsides with that.
or simply ask
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 08:34:18PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
> >>
> >> I find there mo
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almo
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almo
Alastair McKinstry:
>
>
> On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > The only use case I could imagine is to create an executable that can
>> > run outside of Debian.
> Static builds are still common in (parts of) scientific computing.
> Two main reasons:
>
> (1) When performan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 09:06:50PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > > whether it is advisable to try hard to provide static libraries even if
> > > > upstream build system does not
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:13:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking
> are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good
> reason to do so; when requested by users or when there is some other
No, we should not.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I do not mind about the severity of the bug (since IMHO also wishlist
> bugs should be closed). My point was that to my understanding people
> are misunderstanding policy when giving the advise to ignore static
> library.
We should change
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > whether it is advisable to try hard to provide static libraries even if
> > > upstream build system does not easily provide both.
> > Note that it's only a wishlist severity bug if you don't provide it.
> I do not mind about the s
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 07:12:05PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 09:05:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > whether it is advisable to try hard to provide static libraries even if
> > upstream build system does not easily provide both.
> Note that it's only a wishlist s
Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>
> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost *all*
> packages are overridden.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Stender
Control: block by 820614 -1
* Package name: go-cve-dictionary
Version : 0.0+git20160410.6d3c17f
Upstream Author : Kota Kanbe
* URL : https://github.com/kotakanbe/go-cve-dictionary
* License : Apache-2.0
Santiago Vila writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> What is the idea behind the current structure?
>
> It all depends on what you call "specialized requirements".
>
> Unless we rely on popcon to decide what's special and what's not,
> this will remain very sub
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Stender
* Package name: vuls
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Kota Kanbe
* URL : https://github.com/future-architect/vuls
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Google Go
Description : package inventory scan
Hello,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 05:09:29AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> If you put that in Debian::Debhelper::Sequence::elpa you could just
> check for something (an exported variable?) and/or do some magic to
> detect on your own, without having package maintainers having to do this
> choice for
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> What is the idea behind the current structure?
It all depends on what you call "specialized requirements".
Unless we rely on popcon to decide what's special and what's not,
this will remain very subjective.
IMHO, we could well get
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 09:05:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> whether it is advisable to try hard to provide static libraries even if
> upstream build system does not easily provide both.
Note that it's only a wishlist severity bug if you don't provide it.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Descript
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
>>When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
>>
>>http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost
>> *all* packages are overridden.
>
> Exac
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Joel Esler (jesler) wrote:
> Luca is no longer with the ClamAV project.
Removed from CC.
> our community signature program:
Unfortunately this isn't suitable for the distribution of the
3rd-party rules that we are talking about, there is a list of the
current on
* Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost *all*
packages are overridden.
Exactly _all_ binary packages are in th
On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The only use case I could imagine is to create an executable that can
> > run outside of Debian.
Static builds are still common in (parts of) scientific computing.
Two main reasons:
(1) When performance matters. Here we need the static li
> On Apr 10, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Mathieu Parent wrote:
>> 2016-04-06 6:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise:
>>> Personally I am still waiting for clamav freshclam to properly support
>>> third-party signatures, so clamav-unofficial-sigs can be a config fil
Hi all,
Paul Wise gave me the hint that for one of my packages (src:erfa) the
"Priority" field is overwritten (it is "extra", while I specified
"optional" in the package).
When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
I f
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: imip-agent
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Paul Boddie
* URL : http://groupware.boddie.org.uk/imip-agent
* License : GPL-3+
Programming La
Quoting Enrico Zini (2016-04-10 11:20:51)
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:20:07AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> If WebID has a workable plan for what to do after
>>> disappears, I haven't seen it. If you have, please send me precise
>>> details[1]: I haven't seen any in
>>> https://www.w3.org
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:20:07AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > If WebID has a workable plan for what to do after disappears,
> > I haven't seen it. If you have, please send me precise details[1]: I
> > haven't seen any in https://www.w3.org/mid/20150730174424.GA7779@c
>
> I am unaware o
Quoting Enrico Zini (2016-04-10 10:44:02)
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:25:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> I have seen no sign that Chrome or Firefox developers have much
>>> interest in supporting WebID either, and given how I've seen one of
>>> the WebID people argue their case[1] with t
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:25:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I have seen no sign that Chrome or Firefox developers have much
> > interest in supporting WebID either, and given how I've seen one of
> > the WebID people argue their case[1] with the Chrome and Firefox
> > developers, the
Hi,
when I was asking for help to create shared *and* static library on
Debian Mentors list[0] I received two answers that static libraries
are not needed. My reply
Policy says[1]:
The static library (libraryname.a) is usually provided in addition to
the shared version.
I have no go
47 matches
Mail list logo
