Hello On 2009-07-21 Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:40:17AM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote: > > Am Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:18:23 +0100 > > schrieb Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net>: > > > If other libraries are including this library, then why is libmysqld > > > not being provided as a properly-versioned shared object? > > > > Upstream, in this case Monty himself, seems to explicitly want it to be > > a static library for performance reasons as I read from the discussion > > in: http://lists.mysql.com/internals/35950 > > In that case, and if we do indeed want to support this static library > interface, indirect users of libmysqld.a should link to it when they > compile their software. Shared libraries can in fact use symbols from > the 'main' program if they're compiled in like that -- except that, of > course, these shared libraries then depend on the assumption that the > static library does not change its ABI, and they have no way at all to > ensure that.
First, thanks for the long answer, Wouter! To wrap it up: * static libraries are a PITA in case of security problems * static libraries are a PITA for other projects as they have no versions * shared libraries with self chosen soname or --release= versions are even PITA as I, as a maintainer, surely won't watch for ABI breakages * MySQL is a ... :) As I don't care much and the Amarok team asked to provide a -fPIC version my plan is to provide both a static and a pic version to them but in different packages so that in case of a security problem the relevant packages with build-deps can be identified, after which it's their maintainers problem to provide a DSA as well. If the Security-Team or Release Managers clearly reject this, I remove the packages again until the Amarok'ers have come to agreement with them on what's acceptable for Debian. bye, -christian- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
