Hi, On Mon, Jun 19, 2006, Michal Cihar wrote: > > If we were to force all binaries to link to one and only one gnutls, > > then we wouldn't allow two or three gnutls versions in the archive at > > the same time. > It's not about forcing one gnutls version for all binaries but forcing > one gnutls version for one binary. This is IMHO reasonable.
Yeah, I thought it was clear from context, I meant "each binary", not all binaries. However, with this simple assumption, you end up to the same conclusin. :) Consider libfoo linked to libgnutls12 and libbar linked to libgnutls13, how would you build baz which needs libfoo and libbar with such a policy? This would effectively force us to move to the latest gnutls version in the whole archive. > I just reported this problem as my sponsor refused to upload resulting > package and I was not aware of anything wrong in it. I think you can point your sponsor at this thread and suggest that it's not important due to libgnutls using symbol versionning. I also uploaded libsoup yesterday for a different reason, so it should be using the latest version of libgnutls-dev in unstable, just like your package, so the warning should disappear. > Anyway moving > libraries needed for static linkage to Libs.private would resolve > shared libraries case as you most likely don't need direct linkage to > gnutls while using libsoup. Sure, I'm taking patches. :) (Please reopen and retitle the report or file a new one as you prefer.) Also, please note that this only looks possible because I didn't see any #included headers from libgnutls-dev in the headers of libsoup-dev (see pkg-config's #340904). Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
