On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:35:42 +0900 (JST),
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not
> lib*: shared library, all symlinks to .so (including .so -> .so.x.y.z)
> and header files
> lib*-dev: static library?
I forgot that there are multiple version of the same shared library.
Sorry.
--
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:50:16 +0100,
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The static version of a library must be compiled without the
> -fPIC option. It must be placed in the development
> package, normally lib*-dev, but if its size
> exceeds the size of the rest
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I dunno. It seems that policy changes are almost too difficult to even
> try. However, most if not all of the webserver packages I filed the bugs
> against have done this and closed them.
Getting absolutely new, untested, policy
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 01:46:23PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Section 11.2 says:
> >
> > In general, libraries must have a shared version in the library
> > package and a static version in the development package.
>
> > Since it says "the development package", not "a development pac
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 09:34:13PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Section 11.2 says:
>
> In general, libraries must have a shared version in the library
> package and a static version in the development package.
> Since it says "the development package", not "a development package", it
>
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:00:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not at all against splitting out -static packages on a
> case-by-case basis, as used to be done for X's libs. But there's nothing
> in policy to prohibit that anyway.
Section 11.2 says:
In general, libraries must have a s
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 12:49:01PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Adding 1100 additional packages to debian
> >
> > This tendency to fuck up a discussion, despite my best efforts to talk
> > about a compromise right from the start, is very frustrating.
> >
> > % grep-available -F Package -r 'lib.*
Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Adding 1100 additional packages to debian, and 800 mb[1] additional to be
> > downloaded every apt update is unambiguously bloat.
>
> (As you've stated elsewhere, 800kB not millibits ;-)) Balance that against
> the case where anyone downloading -dev packages right now is f
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:15:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Adding 1100 additional packages to debian
>
> This tendency to fuck up a discussion, despite my best efforts to talk
> about a compromise right from the start, is very frustrating.
>
> % grep-available -F Package
Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We shouldn't get rid of the them outright, as people have demonstrated
> a real need to have static libs in some cases.
I think that would more accurately read:
"We shouldn't get rid of the them outright, as people have demonstrated
a real need to have
> Adding 1100 additional packages to debian, and 800 mb[1] additional to be
> downloaded every apt update is unambiguously bloat.
(As you've stated elsewhere, 800kB not millibits ;-)) Balance that against
the case where anyone downloading -dev packages right now is forced to get
static libs when t
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:15:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adding 1100 additional packages to debian
This tendency to fuck up a discussion, despite my best efforts to talk
about a compromise right from the start, is very frustrating.
% grep-available -F Package -r 'lib.*[0-9]$' -s Package -n |
12 matches
Mail list logo
