Re: [s6] debian packaging

From: Laurent Bercot <>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:38:21 +0200

On 10/08/2015 18:59, Buck Evan wrote:
> I'm wrapping up my work to provide debian packages for s6.

  Nice, thanks for your effort!


  Can you please explain the reason for the patch at ?

  My rule of thumb is that libraries, even shared ones, should not
pull in dependencies and that everything should be done at the
executable level. When I'm writing an application that I *know*
won't need some functionality, and the linker still pulls in the
kitchen sink because the packager introduced a dependency in a
shared library I'm using, I explode in rage, and calm myself down
by devising elaborate torments for the person who introduced that
detrimental dependency, whom I affectionately dub "fucking shitty
noob packager".

  This is especially true when someone pulls me a link to libpthread,
but it has happened with librt too.

  I pay special attention in the Makefiles so that
every executable is linked with the libraries it needs, no more,
no less; -lrt happens exactly when it needs to happen. I expect
executable authors to do the same: that's what the *.lib files
in the sysdeps directory are for. There are even a few
widespread utilities to help them achieve exactly that:
pkg-config, for instance.

  So, why does the $(RT_LIB) need to be there, since it will, or
should, be provided by executables that need it ?


  I would advise you to name the sysdepsdir differently from $(lib)/skalibs,
both for clarity ("skalibs" doesn't immediately tell "oh, there are sysdeps
in that directory) and for future compatibility: I can't guarantee that
there will never be anything else than a sysdeps directory to store into
/usr/lib/skalibs. So you probably should keep it as $(lib)/skalibs/sysdeps,
even if it's the only subdirectory of $(lib)/skalibs for now.

> Secondarily, the way I've divided the projects into packages is specified
> in the .install files. Files which are only necessary for compiling further
> tools, rather than "normal usage" are relegated to -dev packages, making
> six packages in all.

  That's perfectly reasonable.
  Is this Debian policy that /lib/*.so is in the -dev while
/lib/*.so.* is in the runtime package ? If you're developing
and want to link against the .so, you need the shared object
at compile time anyway, you can't do with just the .so symlink
(or can you ?) - so, what's the rationale for separating just
that link instead of having all the .so stuff in the runtime
package ?

> Final point of order, since the "skalibs" package contains no such file,
> and is in fact primarily providing a "libskarnet" file, would you be ok if
> I renamed it to "libskarnet"? It's possible that downstream debian might
> insist, and I want to have an answer ready.

  I have no interest in distros' policies and idiosyncrasies; however,
clarity for the user is important. If Debian wants to rename the package
to fit whatever rule they pulled out of their a^Hhats this year, I have no
objection as long as there is something, anything, in the package database
that yields a pointer to the correct package when a user looks for

  Thanks again!

Received on Mon Aug 10 2015 - 18:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC