[pkg-fso-maint] shared library in binary-package?

Nikita V. Youshchenko yoush at debian.org
Tue Sep 8 05:49:32 UTC 2009


>  - Make sure you don't provide shlibs.  The only reason to have a shlibs
>    file is so that packages can declare a dependency on the shared
> library; since there shouldn't be anything doing this, having the shlibs
> will only invite accidents.

Note that package we've just uploaded does provide an shlibs file.
Probably we should remove it.

> I agree with the other comments that for this use case, it would be
> better to just statically link the library into the daemon and let the
> plugins resolve symbols against it.  While there's an architectural
> cleanliness to having a shared library that both daemon and plugins link
> against, and it enables use of things like LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,defs to ensure
> you never have plugins with accidentally missing symbols, I don't really
> think it's worth the tradeoff of maintaining a proper shared library.

The issue being discussed seems debian-specific. Upstream will unlikely be 
not interested in changing things only because debian policies want that.

Since we have more urgent things to do, I think we should keep things as-is 
(maybe only with shlibs file removed) unless ftpmasters will really 
dislike it.

Nikita



More information about the pkg-fso-maint mailing list