On 2011-10-12 21:07 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-10-10 11:53 +0200, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
>>> The problem is that we have two versions of the headers, one in
>>> libncurses5-dev and one in libncursesw5-dev, and there does not seem to
>>> be a shareable subset suitable for libtinfo-dev.
>>> E.g. /usr/include/term.h #includes <ncurses_dll.h>, and
>>> /usr/include/ncursesw/term.h #includes <ncursesw/ncurses_dll.h>.
>>
>> but ncurses_dll.h is identical in the two. It is ncurses.h that differs.
>> (other than the #include line of course, which is generated).
>
> So there might be a shareable subset after all (with some compatibility
> symlinks required in /usr/include/ncursesw probably), but there are some
> files which #include curses.h, namely form.h, menu.h, panel.h, tic.h and
> unctrl.h. Those do not look shareable, since you may end up including
> the wrong ncurses.h.
I suspect we could fix this by providing only the wide version of the
header files, but then there are other problems:
- If we ship the headers in libtinfo-dev, we introduce the reverse
problem, i.e. having header files without the .so symlinks. This does
not seem to be really better than the current situation where we have
.so files without the headers.
- If we lump together libtinfo-dev, libncurses5-dev and libncursesw5-dev
into a single package, chances are that packages (e.g. util-linux)
will pick up the wide version, and we may end up with both libncurses5
and libncursesw5 being required. An even worse problem is that more
packages could end up linking against _both_ libncurses5 and
libncursesw5, which is the last thing I want.
Therefore I would not like to make any changes to the distribution of
header files across the -dev packages for now.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
