Well, I have never really felt libbfd.so-linking rejection from the project before, as tulip has undergone numerous binNMU's to keep pace with libbfd.
Furthermore, the fact that the .so link is installed whenever bfd.h is installed rather calls for linking against the shared lib. If we want to provide them for convenience to use cases which can't really do without, then I feel they ought to be split in a separate deb, right ? ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Helmut Grohne" <hel...@subdivi.de> > À: "Yuri D'Elia" <wav...@thregr.org>, 830...@bugs.debian.org > Cc: "Matthias Klose" <d...@debian.org> > Envoyé: Vendredi 15 Juillet 2016 00:11:31 > Objet: Bug#830985: tulip: error while loading shared libraries: > libbfd-2.26-system.so > > Control: severity -1 grave > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:49:40PM +0200, Yuri D'Elia wrote: > > Seems like tulip depends on libbfd-2.26-system.so, but only > > libbfd-2.26-system.so.1 is available on my system. > > Linking libbfd dynamically is explicitly disallowed (see package > description of binutils-dev). Please do not close this bug without > removing the dynamic linking entirely. If you link libbfd statically, > please ensure to add an appropriate Built-Using header. > > Helmut >
