On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 02:05:52AM +0000, peter green wrote: > oops forgot to actually cc it like I said I would > >>> Does anyone know if there is any particular reason that bitlbee uses >>> libresolv.a rather than libresolv.so ? >>> >> >> Yes; the fact that Ulrich Drepper thought it'd be a good idea to declare >> this API private and unsupported, claiming it's for internal use only, >> even though it's documented in various places already, including IIRC >> O'Reilly's DNS & BIND. >> > I can see that as a good reason for using the static version in upstream > bitlbee. Nevertheless debian does appear to provide a libresolv.so with > a proper soname and linking against it does seem to give sane > dependencies from dpkg-shlibdeps so maybe it would be a good idea to use > it in the debian packages. Ccing debian-glibc to see if they have an > opinion on the matter.
While the API hasn't changed for a lot of time, it can changed at any new version. Also the ABI can really change from version to version. That's why packages using those symbols from glibc have a strict dependency on libc6 (like libc6 (>> 2.9), libc6 (<< 2.10)) to handle that. At some point it means that the package should be rebuilt against the new glibc version using a binNMU. It is usually done more or less automatically by the release managers. If not, dropping a mail to [email protected] to ask them is the best solution. It means a bit more work when a new glibc version is introduced, but I don't see that as a good reason to use the static version instead. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
