[Debtags-devel] Re: First packaging issue for the new comaintainance team

Enrico Zini enrico at enricozini.org
Mon Sep 12 12:29:00 UTC 2005


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:07:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Enrico Zini wrote:

> > - build -fPIC libraries again (and in that case I'd like to find a
> >   better way to do it than before[1]
> In the long run, libtool could be kicked into doing that sanely. It has 
> one disadvantage though: New code will not be tested, as the plugins are 
> still using the old code, and it will be difficult to tell which version 
> is being run.

I don't mind too much about that: at the current state, we can easily
track rdepends and be in touch with the maintainers.

> > - build a .so and change its name at every upload
> Preferable IMO. It makes pretty much clear that this is an unstable API, 
> but has the disadvantage of requiring rebuilds of all applications that 
> use it (but this can be fixed by NMUing unchanged source with the 
> permission of the respective maintainer)

More interesting feedback from a #debian-tech[1] conversation on IRC:

14:05 < enrico> I might have a question for this channel re
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-September/000821.html : do we have a proper recommended procedure to handle that case?
14:06 < enrico> I can see two ways: one is creating the -pic library (but
                there's no direct support on libtool to do that) and the other
                is changing soname at every upload (putting more load on the
                ftpmasters)
14:09 < vorlon> enrico: Policy 10.2 allows for creating a special _pic.a lib
                that's static but PIC.
14:18 < enrico> vorlon: is there an explicit note about it?  I couldn't find it
14:20 < vorlon> hmm... I can't find one
14:21 < vorlon> but see xlibs-static-pic for an example of a package that's
                done this for years
14:21 < enrico> vorlon: ok, thanks
14:22 < vorlon> sure
14:22 < vorlon> so I guess the answer is, policy doesn't actually allow it, but
                Policy is wrong. :)
14:22  * enrico is depressed at the burden of going back to make the -pic, but
          at least now I have a couple comaintainers
14:22 < vorlon> why was the pic dropped?
14:23 < enrico> vorlon: because I wrongly understood it was only a performance
                issue and I could do without


> >The good news this time is that I'm not alone anymore in solving this
> >mess and we can work it out in a team.  What do you think of this
> >situation?
> Not sanely solvable until my autobuilder project is finished and/or 
> packages that are uninstallable but buildable are automatically rebuilt.

Gah, uhm... so let's stay in the sanely solvable and let's solve it in
the less possible insane way :)

So far I could be happy with the -pic thing, especially if you have more
libtool know-how than me to get this done in a saner way.


Ciao,

Enrico

[1] http://people.debian.org/~ajt/CHARTER.debian-tech
--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico at enricozini.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20050912/592898f9/attachment.pgp


More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list