On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:21:45AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> Policy reads:
>
> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and a
> static version in the lib*-dev package"
I'd just like to note that I've changed this text (and most of the other
stuff about li
Although I thought static libs might be useless for a second,
I remembered that I actually do use static libs...
> > It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> > bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> > would want or need static libraries in
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:38:57AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> b) I didn't respond to it, I responded to emails that seemed to
>seriously be advocating doubling the number of -dev packages in
>debian. In particular, I responded to this statement by Jamin W.
>Collins:
>
>> On Fri, Feb
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> Er um, kilobytes of course.
>
> > -rw-rw-r--1 joey joey 843948 Feb 8 19:13 list
What about compression? bz2/gz?
Josip Rodin wrote:
> And you are totally ignoring what I wrote in my initial mail!
I'm sure your mail was the most important post on the thread and stuff,
but -
a) I am catching up from a 40 thousand message, 1 month backlog, and
frankly whatever you said didn't really stick in my mind.
b) I
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
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 |
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:15:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adding 1100 additional packages to debian, and 800 mb[1] additional to
> be downloaded every apt update is unambiguously bloat. It also goes
> rather against the originally stated rationalle of saving on download
> time. And it wouldn't
Joey Hess wrote:
> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > Would moving the static libraries to separate packages increase the
> > number of package in Debian, certainly. Would this be "bloat", I don't
> > see it as such. To consider this as bloat is to consider the choice of
> > editors available in Debian
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> Would moving the static libraries to separate packages increase the
> number of package in Debian, certainly. Would this be "bloat", I don't
> see it as such. To consider this as bloat is to consider the choice of
> editors available in Debian (~100+ according to a quick
James Troup writes:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For the record, I *need* static libraries.
>
> Why?
I need some programs I built to run on my different accounts on machines
running a lot of different GNU/Linux distributions, Debian, Redhat, Mandrake,
etc... with even seve
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 10:57:27AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> >> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
> >> > else previously
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
>> > else previously suggested? This would still allow those that want
>> > them to have them
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
> > else previously suggested? This would still allow those that want
> > them to have them and those that don't to avoid them.
>
> It would bloat the Packages file
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:49:33PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> Note that, looking at the aspell package, I don't think it has
>> included the static library in years, if ever, but no bug report has
>> ever been filed. Likewise, I would expect t
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:49:33PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Note that, looking at the aspell package, I don't think it has
> included the static library in years, if ever, but no bug report has
> ever been filed. Likewise, I would expect that there is little or no
> demand for static librarie
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
>> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
>> bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
>> would want or need static libraries in this day
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:43:39PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For the record, I *need* static libraries.
>
> Why?
Maybe for compiling programs that are used in chroot environments.
That is a case where I would like to have them.
So I'm not sure
.
Doesn't mean that every library requires a static
version, but there might be a requirement for
a carefully picked few to be mandated.
Cheers,
Berin
>
> From: Anthony Towns
> Subject: Re: Question regarding policy (11.2)
> Date: 07/02/2003 14:42:06
> To: debian-policy@lists.de
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:43:38 -0500,
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> > bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> > would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm
> > miss
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
> > people doing development to go buy a big disk.
> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> bandwid
On Thursday 06 February 2003 13:57, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >
> > However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask people
> > doing development to go buy a big disk.
>
> IME it's not the disk space that's so much of an issue, it's the bandwidth!
> Having to get 5 MB (all devel. stuff in
> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm
> missing something obvious.
zsh-static needs a static libc and ncurses
sash needs a st
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm
> missing something obvious
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:33:04PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Josip> I'm not too keen on providing static versions at all. I
> Josip> can't remember I last saw someone use a -dev package for
> Josip> that. People usually need a -dev package for the .so file
> Josip> and the .h file
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 08:16:29AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
> >Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
> >> people doing development to go buy a big disk.
> >
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
>Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
>> people doing development to go buy a big disk.
>
>It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
>bandwidt
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
> people doing development to go buy a big disk.
It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
would wan
> "Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:21:45AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II
Josip> wrote:
>> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package
>> and a static version in the lib*-dev package"
>>
>> I'm not too keen
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the record, I *need* static libraries.
Why?
--
James
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 th
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:42:40PM +, James Troup 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 of the files
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 of the files in the development
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:21:45AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and a
> static version in the lib*-dev package"
>
>I'm not too keen on providing static versions of libraries [whose]
> intent [is use in] embedded devices.
"Ivan E. Moore II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Policy reads:
>
> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and
> a static version in the lib*-dev package"
>
>I'm not too keen on providing static versions of libraries who's intent are
> for embedded d
Hi,
Policy reads:
"All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and a static
version in the lib*-dev package"
I'm not too keen on providing static versions of libraries who's intent are
for embedded devices. The idea, of course, for embedded devices are to have
as
45 matches
Mail list logo
