On 2012-08-13 13:06, P. J. McDermott wrote:
> On 2012-08-13 07:30, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Moreover, all the libraries which are meant to be used by other
>> packages are already multi-arched and they are in their own package
>> (the last two in the list above).
>
> But this is a good point, which I had failed to realize previously. No
> files in Debian besides the Gettext utilities should link against the
> libraries in the gettext binary package.
>
> [...]
>
> Or might it be necessary to support other packages someday linking
> against gettext's internal library objects (and the cross building of
> those packages)?
Actually, there are two symbolic links that suggest that the libraries
in gettext might be meant (by upstream) to be used by other packages:
/usr/lib/libgettextsrc.so -> libgettextsrc-0.18.1.so
/usr/lib/libgettextlib.so -> libgettextlib-0.18.1.so
So there appear to be three ways to make gettext capable of satisfying
cross build dependencies of packages such as those Johannes listed:
1. Mark gettext Multi-Arch: allowed. All depending packages that are
to be cross built will need to depend on gettext:any.
2. Split the remaining libraries out of gettext (my original proposed
solution). Mark gettext Multi-Arch: foreign and the new libraries
package(s) Multi-Arch: same.
3. Remove the aforementioned symbolic links and declare the libraries
in gettext "for internal use only" (as is libbfd-2.22-system.so in
binutils, for example).
I understand why it was done in Ubuntu, but IMHO, option 1 is the least
favorable, as it makes dependency clarification the job of many
depending packages (requiring metadata changes thereto). (And as
Johannes noted, this isn't supported yet by wanna-build, though this
isn't a huge blocker per se.)
Option 3 would of course be simplest, but I have no strong opinions
between options 2 or 3. I'm prepared to do the work and submit a patch
for either.
Santiago, which option do you think is best? Can we say that the use of
the libraries in the gettext binary package by other packages is "not
allowed", or should we support such use in the future?
--
P. J. McDermott (_/@\_) ,--.
http://www.pehjota.net/ o < o o > / oo \
http://www.pehjota.net/contact.html o \ `-/ | <> |.
o o o "~v /_\--/_/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
