[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