On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this approach then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the ultimate, if this is a dirty hack then please elaborate on possible alternative approaches - even if tricky to achieve: others here might have ideas on how to reach a higher level of elegantry (or however that word is bent).

it's certainly in sync with the current puredata package in debian; the relevant patches (using the pd_linux extension for debian/hurd and debian/kFreeBSD) have even made it into upstream of puredata....

other pkgs usually use ".so" as extension, which Pd for historical reasons does not, and instead uses it's own extension (varying across platforms).

Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like lintian and dh_shlibdeps?

I actually do not think that dh_shlibdeps has any role here, just mentioning it as an example: For Debian packaging we have a bunch of helper tools used either directly during packaging or during various tests and inspections, which rely on e.g. shared libraries ending in .so and located below /usr/lib. When then unusual things are done, we might want to add hints for such tools to not hide potential problems from them.

Or expressed differently: Even if PureData works splendid with its unusual naming, we still might benefit in Debian (and derivatives) from using the classic .so extension if indeed it is technically the same.

One example issue we could be hiding is that of rpath usage: Everything works fine but Debian set higher standards than "works fine for *normal* use" and lintian checks was added at some point to warn if rpath was used in shared libraries.

Again, I do not say that rpath in particular is my concern - it is but an example: Could be some other similarly "pedantic" issue raised later, which none of us today know about, but will remain hidden if we use odd naming for a common file type.

Also, some archs have problems with fPIC, and I believe it is mentioned in Debian Policy that normal builds should *not* use fPIC while static libraries (unused here, just mentioning for completenes sake) *should* use it.

the fPIC flag is tested for during configure time, and it's only used
if the compiler supports it.
it was introduced, because x86_64 does require it.
it can be turned off by using "--disable-PIC", though of course this
has to exclude x86_64

Do others have more knowledge about this than me?

this sounds a bit ironic, but i miss the smiley, so i guess it's not.

It is not: I know Make, Perl, Bash, love regular expressions, and can juggle patches. But cannot do a helloworld in C or C++.

It takes more than a smiley to change that :-)

NB! Please do not cc me - I am subscribed, and it messes up my MUA.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to