Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, just to be sure: you suggest making a separate library package, > but putting the libs in /usr/lib/<libpackage> and RPATH-linking the > binaries, right? That is, treating the library as private, although it > is a separate package. Phew.
Right. I think this is the best of a set of bad options for the situation that you're in, but that it's acceptable. You'll have to maintain tight dependencies between the binary packages and the library package since there aren't versioned SONAMEs to help and you basically can't use the shlibs system the way it's intended given the structure of these packages. But it's not really that different from a binary that allows plugins that are shipped in a separate package; it just has the direction of dependency reversed. I don't know if others would disagree with me. > I guess then there would be no need for a -dev package? Hmm. Upstream > has included the necessary header files in every pacakage which needs > them. Of course the packages would still need to build-depend upon the > libraries, to make the linking succeed. No problem. -dev packages are for Debian users to do development against the libraries or for other packages that depend on those libraries to build against them, neither of which seems to be useful outside of this complex of packages itself. > dpkg-shlibdeps would still choke upon the unversioned soname, but I > could just hard-code the library dependency and be done with it. There > would be no shlibs file. Again no problem, right? That's my take, yes. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
