The requirement for a BDO tag in .info kicks in when a .deb has both a shared library and a header file. Why is the shared library required? Seems like having headers already means it's used by the compiler. It might be a headers-only template library or other set of macros, or the library with the headers might be static-only. In either of those cases, I think the package would only be used as a BuildDepends (not Depends) and that it should *not* be a Depends in order to allow swapping of different interface-versions of it. Any objections to knocking the heuristic for "BDO required" down to *just* "header files"?
This came up after a #fink discussion where we found that frameworks are not flagged for requiring BDO, even though they may contain "non-libversioned" files for use by others compiling against them. That's the situation that BDO is designed to signify, and therefore prevent Depends deadlocks when swapping different libversions. So, while we're working on BDO, should it also be required when a .framework contains non-libversioned files? dan -- Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
