On 11/10/20 10:51 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 15948 March 1977, Paul Wise wrote: > >> Does this include the -dev packages for C/etc libraries? > > No. > >> I guess it also applies to Haskell and other statically-linked languages. >> https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking > > StaticLinking itself is not enough. This is about languages where the actual > development in it is discouraged from doing with the debian packaged stuff. > Where you do not go "I need lib XY, i install libxy-perl/libxy-dev/whatever > the > name" and hack around using it. But "Oh, i want to hack on foo, i go get > foo/cargo .../whateverthetool" and the debian package only ever comes in play > if > you do build debian packages using it.
If you ask some upstreams of Python based software, their recommendation would be to use pip, and probably conda (a cross OS distribution focusing on Python) to do upstream development. If you ask casual users, you probably will get another answer. Same thing probably for Java libraries. I don't know anybody who would do development using the Debian packaged libraries. > >>> The current proposal is to reduce the main Packages.xz files size by >>> splitting[4] out all of the packages that are not intended for users, >>> writing those into an own file. Those packages would have a section of >>> "buildlibs", independent of their other properties. >> Should (almost?) everything in the existing libdevel section move to >> the new buildlibs section? > > No, if so we would have split that section out. Reducing the size of the index file is a technical issue inside Debian, and relating that to """ languages where the actual development in it is discouraged from doing with the debian packaged stuff """ seems to be wrong, as any upstream eco system providing their own environment for development and distribution would need to move to this section. I don't think the reference to upstreams doesn't help with the definition of the new section. Matthias
