[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: static libs ... again

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 17:18 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > 
> >>> Eek.    I still think headers and api docs and such still should be 
> >>> in -devel (especially if there's any likelyhood of a real shared lib 
> >>> existing some day), and that -static should Requires: %{name}-devel
> > 
> >>>> Also I wonder how hard is it to add -fpic -DPIC to the cflags and 
> >>>> change the link command to generate an .so. The only added trouble 
> >>>> would be checking for abi changes on new releases and bumping the 
> >>>> .so name a release.
> > 
> >>> Exactly.  I'm of the opinion (in most cases) that if upstream isn't 
> >>> able/willing to do something (like generating shared libs), then 
> >>> neither am I (as packager).
> > 
> >> You say "Exactly" as in I agree with you and then you continue with 
> >> saying that you're not willing todo this, I'm confused now.
> > 
> > Exactly, as in "The only added trouble..." part.  (-:
> > 
> > As I said, if it's really not so hard, let upstream do it, per Fedora's 
> > mantra "Upstream, upstream, upstream..."
> > 
> Yes,
> But sometimes upstream doesn't, because they dont care about this for 
> example, yet it would still be worth the trouble. I believe this needs 
> more discussion we all seem to agree that static libs should be provided 
> if possible, since in most cases even if upstream doesn't do it it isn't 
> all that much work, why don't we do this.
> I'm planning on packaging some software that uses one of these only has 
> -devel with static libs packages with no .so and I'm actually also 
> planning on filing an RFE against this package for proper .so files.
> Why shouldn't a packager do this? Upstream is what we want, but 
> unfortunatly is not always what we get.
Creating shared library infrastructure isn't too hard.  But it is hard
to maintain it without upstream support.  You have to track ABI changes
while upstream can feel free to make changes to data structures.  You
never know if your versioning will interfere with upstream's if they get
around to creating the infrastructure themselves.

If you're going to do this as a packager, you need to get some sort of
blessing from upstream, otherwise you're going to have a lot of work
maintaining the shared libraries.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]