Re: Static linking policy? (libllvm/libclang)
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> I vaguely recall that static linking is considered a bad idea in Debian, for
> much the same reasons that embedded code copies are, but I can't find this
> actually written down anywhere.
I'm not sure if there is consensus on this topic but some people (like
myself) actively discourage distributing static libraries in Debian
binary packages. There was some discussion about putting a
recommendation in policy about this:
https://bugs.debian.org/555980
> I'm working on packaging pocl (ITP #676504), which uses libllvm and
> libclang. Dynamically linking libclang makes the package non-functional;
> dynamically linking libllvm works, but upstream don't recommend it due to
> https://github.com/pocl/pocl/issues/46 .
>
> Are those sufficient reasons to link statically
I believe so, at least until llvm/clang folks implement symbol
versioning in their libraries.
> and if so, do I need to register having done so somewhere
> (i.e. "if you update libclang/libllvm, please binNMU pocl")?
You would have to ask the release team about binNMU stuff but I think
you are looking for the Built-Using field:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-built-using
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: