-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florent Rougon wrote:
Székelyi Szabolcs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's right. But why is Replaces needed in the case of an MTA? If a
package Providing mail-transport-agent is installed, and the user is
about to explicitly install another package
seen similar (ie. development) packages with and others without
this. Do I?
If you want to support upgrading for users who use you previous
unofficial package, and libvrb0-dev ships the same files as libvrb-dev,
then yes, you need Replaces: (and probably also Conflicts:) libvrb-dev
Székelyi Szabolcs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's right. But why is Replaces needed in the case of an MTA? If a
package Providing mail-transport-agent is installed, and the user is
about to explicitly install another package which also Provides and
Conflicts with mail-transport-agent, then
( 1.1.22-3)
This is for historical reasons, I guess.
I'm not sure I understand the example about MTAs in Policy 7.5.2. Why is
Replaces needed at all in this particular case? Is this also valid in
the case of development packages? Why aren't Conflicts + Provides enough?
Quoting § 7.5.2
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:14:51PM +0200, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
Hi,
Ming Hua wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
James Westby wrote:
* Do you need Replaces: libvrb-dev as well?
I have seen similar (ie. development) packages with and others
understand the example about MTAs in Policy 7.5.2. Why is
Replaces needed at all in this particular case? Is this also valid in
the case of development packages? Why aren't Conflicts + Provides enough?
Quoting § 7.5.2:
Secondly, Replaces allows the packaging system to resolve which
package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Ming Hua wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
James Westby wrote:
* Do you need Replaces: libvrb-dev as well?
I have seen similar (ie. development) packages with and others without
this. Do I
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From what I can tell, the .pc files already contain enough information
to distinguish between direct and indirect dependencies.
If you were to take libs specified in the .pc, and those directly
Required by it, that should be the minimum.
Better still,
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From what I can tell, the .pc files already contain enough information
to distinguish between direct and indirect dependencies.
If you were to take libs specified in the .pc, and those directly
Required by it, that should be the minimum.
Better still,
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 22:00]:
Err, no, it wouldn't contain files for static linking, it'd contain
debugging information so that you could debug your programs using gdb.
You were talking about debugging above.
I was talking of debugging by compiling it using static
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 22:00]:
Err, no, it wouldn't contain files for static linking, it'd contain
debugging information so that you could debug your programs using gdb.
You were talking about debugging above.
I was talking of debugging by compiling it using static
I demand that Stephen Frost may or may not have written...
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize
an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP.
In the event, I was able to get a statically
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 00:29]:
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 00:29]:
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static
I demand that Stephen Frost may or may not have written...
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize
an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP.
In the event, I was able to get a statically
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 00:29]:
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040323 00:29]:
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically the essence of the mess is #191425. If libfoo links against
libbar and application blah makes use of libfoo (but does not use
libbar) libtool will link the application against both libraries.
[...]
O.k., understood.
Now libtool gets this
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these days.
I do not know, if they are used to make any programs intended for
production use any more,
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 19:49, Stephen Frost wrote:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.
.la files shouldn't be included in anything,
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:29, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Kster wrote:
[libtool brokenness]
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could
read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be
a bug nevertheless if I
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we
have some hope of getting these things right in the near future;
pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between
static and shared
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 22:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic ports come to fruition.
Debian Solaris anyone? :o)
I'm not 100% sure but I
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip
them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip
binaries, surely?
I believe that this
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we
have some hope of getting these things right in the near future;
pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is*
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared
library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static
library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the
libxxx[N]-dev package.
Right, on Debian shipping
On 2004-03-22 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
[libtool brokenness]
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could
read about these problems, and under what
Alexander Winston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip
them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary,
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic ports come to fruition.
Debian
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not 100% sure but I actually thought that's what OpenLDAP used
(libltdl) and it works just fine w/o the stupid .la files.
Have you actually *used* libltdl yourself? For several reasons, it's
often best
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these days.
I do not know, if they are used to make any
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Boot Knoppix or similar from a CD. PCs today are more often installed
with CDs than floppies anyway. That's really a pretty poor reason.
I cannot use a Knoppix CD to rescue
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Consider this situation:
Situations can be derived for anything. :)
Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies.
Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them.
What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:54:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary, copy it onto a floppy
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
/usr/lib/rep/...
/usr/lib/libkabc_ldapkio.la
/usr/lib/libesd.la
/usr/lib/libkwireless.la
usr/lib/gimp/1.3/modules/...
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
[...]
So either you don't mean that absolutely, or three's
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
[...]
So
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically the essence of the mess is #191425. If libfoo links against
libbar and application blah makes use of libfoo (but does not use
libbar) libtool will link the application against both libraries.
[...]
O.k., understood.
Now libtool gets this
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:28:43PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Personally I think the payoff is ok, due to dlopen in glibc (NSS,
iconv) static linking is unreliable anyway.
This I don't understand. What is the relation between dlopen calls and
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.
.la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.
.la files
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
important for some end-users and local
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these days.
I do not know, if they are used to make any programs intended for
production use any more,
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 19:49, Stephen Frost wrote:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life.
.la files shouldn't be included in anything,
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:29, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
[libtool brokenness]
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could
read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be
a bug nevertheless if I
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we
have some hope of getting these things right in the near future;
pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between
static and shared
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 22:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic ports come to fruition.
Debian Solaris anyone? :o)
I'm not 100% sure but I
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip
them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip
binaries, surely?
I believe that this
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we
have some hope of getting these things right in the near future;
pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is*
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared
library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static
library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the
libxxx[N]-dev package.
Right, on Debian shipping
On 2004-03-22 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
[libtool brokenness]
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could
read about these problems, and under what
Alexander Winston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip
them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary,
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
the more exotic ports come to fruition.
Debian
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not 100% sure but I actually thought that's what OpenLDAP used
(libltdl) and it works just fine w/o the stupid .la files.
Have you actually *used* libltdl yourself? For several reasons, it's
often best
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]:
Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
case these days.
I do not know, if they are used to make any
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Boot Knoppix or similar from a CD. PCs today are more often installed
with CDs than floppies anyway. That's really a pretty poor reason.
I cannot use a Knoppix CD to rescue
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Consider this situation:
Situations can be derived for anything. :)
Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies.
Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them.
What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:54:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary, copy it onto a floppy
Hello
I'm trying to create a deb, but I don't know how to split them up? What
files do go in the -dev package? Is there some guide like the New
Maintainers' Guide that explains how to split packages up? I'm very confused
about this. I tried searching the Debian policy and the Debian reference,
Ali Bombali [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hello
I'm trying to create a deb, but I don't know how to split them up?
What files do go in the -dev package? Is there some guide like the New
Maintainers' Guide that explains how to split packages up? I'm very
confused about this.
It seems you are
* Frank K?ster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the
least. First off- the section about
Hello
I'm trying to create a deb, but I don't know how to split them up? What
files do go in the -dev package? Is there some guide like the New
Maintainers' Guide that explains how to split packages up? I'm very confused
about this. I tried searching the Debian policy and the Debian
Ali Bombali [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hello
I'm trying to create a deb, but I don't know how to split them up?
What files do go in the -dev package? Is there some guide like the New
Maintainers' Guide that explains how to split packages up? I'm very
confused about this.
It seems you are
* Frank K?ster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the
least. First off- the section about
81 matches
Mail list logo
