[Pkg-octave-devel] octave2.1 and octave2.9 in unstable
folajimi at speakeasy.net
Tue Nov 15 20:14:26 UTC 2005
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, John W. Eaton wrote:
> It would be best if we could avoid the fork. How can we convince the
> maintainers of glpk that it would be best to generate shared
> libraries? What are their objections? Just that it is still under
> development? Hmm. Pretty much all software is under development, is
> it not? I've never heard anyone say that shared librarires are only
> for software that is no longer changing.
> If the upstream author won't accept your patch, then wouldn't it be
> best for the maintainer of the Debian package of glpk to apply it
> rather than have two glpk packages for Debian?
> If neither will apply the patch, I don't see that we have much choice
> if we want to use glpk for Octave.
Forgive me if this is out of context, but according to the Debian Policy Manual
(section 8.3 - Static libraries):
"The static library (libraryname.a) is usually provided in _addition_ to the
shared version..." (Emphasis Mine)
The relevant exception to this rule is for "libraries which are explicitly
intended to be available only in static form by their upstream author(s)." Is
that the case here? Does the GNU project have a contradictory policy?
More information about the Pkg-octave-devel