On 2023-01-05 20:32 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Santiago Vila" <sanv...@debian.org>
> | To: "Thomas Dickey" <dic...@his.com>, 1012...@bugs.debian.org
> | Cc: "Sven Joachim" <svenj...@gmx.de>
> | Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:09:22 PM
> | Subject: Bug#1012325: dialog: Multi-Arch: foreign package should not
> contain static library
>
> | El 6/1/23 a las 0:39, Thomas Dickey escribió:
> |> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 04:05:29PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> |>> In Debian the static library has always been named libdialog.a,
> |>> but the library according to the author is called libcdialog.so.
> |>
> |> A development package could have both static and dynamic libraries.
> |> dialog can build either, but not both at the same time (just like ncurses).
> |
> | Ok, I didn't know, but the thing which I'm worried about is
> | really libdialog vs libcdialog, not ".a" vs ".so".
>
> I name my Dialog package with a "c" to allow me to have
> both the Debian and my test-package installed without conflict.
>
> (I do this for most of my test-packages, because it's otherwise awkward to
> respond to bug-reports)
>
> My comment about the layout was in more general terms,
> to show how it might be reorganized to provide the development library.
I had a look at the dialog package list for Arch Linux[1] and Fedora
Rawhide[2], and they both ship libdialog.so, libdialog.so.15 and
libdialog.so.15.0.0. There is no libcdialog.so, nor a static library.
> | (sorry for mixing both things)
> |
> | To be more precise: Are there any applications in the wild linked
> | against libcdialog.so which would not run in a Debian system
> | if I decide to provide libdialog.so in the Debian package?
>
> very few people (aside from me) use my test-packages :-)
I think it would make sense for Debian to follow what Arch and Fedora
are doing, introduce a libdialog15 package with the shared library and a
libdialog-dev package with the .so symlink but without libdialog.a,
because that requires (if I understood you correctly) configuring and
building dialog twice, greatly complicating packaging.
Santiago, do you think this is a good plan? I can work on an updated
patch.
Cheers,
Sven
1. https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/dialog/
2.
https://fedora.pkgs.org/rawhide/fedora-x86_64/dialog-1.3-50.20240101.fc40.x86_64.rpm.html
