On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:27PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden> wrote:
> > Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be pro=
vided
> > for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. =
I=20
> > wouldn't consider a library package which can't be used by any shared l=
ibrary=20
> > to be releasable. Would anyone else?
> It's a bit more complex than this, you can find a summary in
> http://blog.bofh.it/id_101 .
> In this specific case, the solutions should be (in order of priority):
> - remove freecdb from the archive, since there are better replacements
> (providing a shared library is enough to make them better, at least)
> - make freecdb provide a shared library (which should be easy, and the
> opinion of DJB is not really intersting not relevant for our purposes)
> - make freecdb provide a PIC static library
> OTOH, the last two points are almost a pointless exercise if there is no
> actual shared library which needs to be linked against freecdb.
vpopmail has one.
--=20
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
<email address hidden> http://www.debian.org/
--6qFdnjy6dKaiDX/E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 04:12:25 -0800
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: Marco d'Itri <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Policy should require _pic libraries for static-only libraries
--6qFdnjy6dKaiDX/E Disposition: inline Transfer- Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-
Content-
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:27PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden> wrote:
> > Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be pro= blog.bofh. it/id_101 .
vided
> > for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. =
I=20
> > wouldn't consider a library package which can't be used by any shared l=
ibrary=20
> > to be releasable. Would anyone else?
> It's a bit more complex than this, you can find a summary in
> http://
> In this specific case, the solutions should be (in order of priority):
> - remove freecdb from the archive, since there are better replacements
> (providing a shared library is enough to make them better, at least)
> - make freecdb provide a shared library (which should be easy, and the
> opinion of DJB is not really intersting not relevant for our purposes)
> - make freecdb provide a PIC static library
> OTOH, the last two points are almost a pointless exercise if there is no
> actual shared library which needs to be linked against freecdb.
vpopmail has one.
--=20 www.debian. org/
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
<email address hidden> http://
--6qFdnjy6dKaiDX/E pgp-signature; name="signature .asc" Description: Digital signature Disposition: inline
Content-Type: application/
Content-
Content-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
ufymYLloRAjpOAK CgZT3Ja7C1srGQb ZU8CnVTLPtbpQCe K8bH saflKlME=
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDvl6oKN6
P5fdVvwSgGKEACx
=DosF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--6qFdnjy6dKaiD X/E--