Re: nonpublic shared libraries (repost; was: Re: dh_shlibdeps in = warnings; dh_shlibdeps out = cyclic dependency on self)

2005-09-13 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:12:02PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Justin Pryzby] > > In which case, should the shared libraries go into a separate package? > > I wouldn't bother unless there are multiple binary packages already > which will require the library, and they don't already depend o

Re: nonpublic shared libraries (repost; was: Re: dh_shlibdeps in = warnings; dh_shlibdeps out = cyclic dependency on self)

2005-09-11 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Sep 12, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This was originally sent to -mentors, but elicited no response, so I'm > reposting here: I agree with the answer by Peter Samuelson. Most of the policy requirements about libraries are only relevant if they are shared among non-cooperating pack

Re: nonpublic shared libraries (repost; was: Re: dh_shlibdeps in = warnings; dh_shlibdeps out = cyclic dependency on self)

2005-09-11 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Justin Pryzby] > In which case, should the shared libraries go into a separate package? I wouldn't bother unless there are multiple binary packages already which will require the library, and they don't already depend on each other. And this is probably a fairly rare case. Basically, if there'

nonpublic shared libraries (repost; was: Re: dh_shlibdeps in = warnings; dh_shlibdeps out = cyclic dependency on self)

2005-09-11 Thread Justin Pryzby
This was originally sent to -mentors, but elicited no response, so I'm reposting here: I actually had postponed a message about all these questions for some 6+ months now, while I tried to phrase the questions in a more useful way. This thread caused me to regain interest. Hopefully someone here