On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:19:21PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > > > According to the nettle docs, summer needs be linked with -lnettle -lgmp, > > > but I don't know if this is Right. As it happens, I was just discussing > > > this with upstream.
> > No it's not right. No software should be required to care about the > > implementation details of the library it's using, *especially* when > > dynamic linking on an OS that gets this right (such as GNU/Linux). > I was thinking of using pkg-config to get the right linker flags, thereby > relieving the software using nettle from knowing the details. But it's still > much better to link libnettle.so.2 with -lgmp, since it's always needed > anyway. Right; pkg-config support is good in case people need to link with libnettle statically, or if they need to link with it on platforms that don't have robust shared lib handling, but making the apps link directly with libgmp still means that the next time libgmp has an soname transition, we would have four packages to rebuild instead of one (the three reverse-deps of libnettle, plus libnettle itself, which on top of everything else might be silently *broken* by the soname change in libgmp because it doesn't have a proper dependency specifying the ABI it needs). > > The previous upstream version of libnettle (or at least, the Debian > > packaging thereof) got this right. The current behavior is a regression. > Yes, apparently I lost that piece of the Debian diff when I upgraded to > upstream version 1.15. I'll fix it right away. Ok, thanks :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
