On 2011-04-17 19:14, Neil Williams wrote:
> Tollef? Any change in that since 2007?
> (I'm not expecting such a change as pkg-config doesn't do this for dynamic 
> linkage either, that is left to the package build system. As static is not 
> the default build for most package build systems, it's not unexpected that it 
> simply doesn't work in many cases. Too few people care, too few people to 
> test every single change in the dependency chain.)
> Is it possible to define an alternative .pc file which omits libva-dev and 
> libgcrypt? (Even if that means that libav itself needs different ./configure 
> options to be built that way).
> If not, maybe this just needs some documentation that static linking for this 
> package - and quite probably many, many others - simply does not work. It's 
> an upstream issue - does upstream care about static linkage? (I'm upstream 
> for a few and I frankly don't care about static linkage in those packages at 
> all. I haven't worked with other upstream teams where I can remember anyone 
> ever expressing interest in static linking either.)
> I think it is worth being realistic here. Assuring static linkage support in 
> Debian is, IMHO, simply not attainable for the vast majority of libraries. 
> It's not a fixable problem because not enough people care about it anymore. 
> Changes in static linkage behaviour are not likely to be an ingredient in any 
> Release Team considerations for testing migrations or stable releases, so 
> even if this was done once, it would break almost immediately.
> I also think the bug is from a mistaken viewpoint. There is nothing which can 
> be put into a .pc file to imply that static linkage is or is not possible. 
> pkg-config has a --static option but pkg-config doesn't attempt to verify any 
> of the strings it outputs, dynamic or static.
> Therefore, libav does not have a pkg-config file which implies possible 
> static linkage. Any package with a .pc file has an implied support for the 
> options which pkg-config supports but that support is only a bug if the 
> package concerned EXPLICITLY declares such support. All packages in Debian 
> can be considered to explicitly support dynamic linking via pkg-config if a 
> .pc file is provided - the same cannot be said for static.
> Packages cannot be blamed for lack of support for options made available from 
> tools when those options are not explicitly supported by that particular 
> package.
> Certain methods must be supported and, currently, that is dynamic linkage - 
> not static.
> IMHO unless every upstream package in the necessary chain states that static 
> linkage is supported by upstream, then static linkage is an "exercise left to 
> the reader" to solve and there's nothing to be done with bugs like this, 
> except possibly state in the packaging docs that static simply does not work 
> "out of the box".

It seems I've missunderstod some aspects of the features of pkg-config.
I assumed as there are Requires.private and Libs.private, that there was
some way to specify that static linkage was not possible at all.

Perhaps an bug on pkg-config should be open to add option to prohibit
static linkage.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to