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
44 matches
Mail list logo
