On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:37:30PM -0700, Erik Walthinsen wrote:
> This problem has to be resolved, and while the idea of a libxyz_pic.a is
> viable perhaps, it's not the Correct(tm) solution.
What's not correct about it, aside from it not being a shared library?
> Correct solution is to make them shared libs with proper versioning
> (and versioned headers as necessary). Until it is, Debian is gonna
> have to keep granting (or worse, not) exceptions for packages that
> have to work around these libraries, and for archs where it just plain
> doesn't work at all, people are simply screwed.
To the best of my knowledge, creation of _pic.a objects, and packages to
contain them, doesn't violate Debian Policy in any way (building regular
.a's with -fPIC *does*, however). Just look at libc6-pic.
--
G. Branden Robinson | The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux | perhaps less in what we are free to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | do. -- Eric Hoffer
PGP signature
