Hi, On 14.02.2015 13:31, Dmitry Katsubo wrote:
> I wonder what is the current state-of-art concerning the code in .a > library (archive for static linking). Should it contain PIC code? Normally, no. > Situation: Dynamic (.so) library needs to be linked against such (.a) > library. That is generally frowned upon. I do the same thing with vxi and librevisa -- I build the static library with PIC code and statically link into librevisa, and I justify that by the vxi code being generated RPC stubs that really don't need an extra shared library package. However, your case is different: a quick hack package without a stable ABI is the exact opposite. From a distribution point of view, it is difficult to track what version of a static library was linked, which is why we use shared libraries as often as we can. The slightly suboptimal solution for a library without a stable ABI is to use a version number in the SONAME, leave out the version from the package name and build a shlibs file that uses a dependency with a fixed version. This means that all packages using this library can only be upgraded together, but at least it doesn't introduce lots of NEW packages with every upload. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature