pd-zexy compilation improvements

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:11:16PM +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
>On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like 
>> lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
>>
>> I actually do not think that dh_shlibdeps has any role here, just 
>> mentioning it as an example: For Debian packaging we have a bunch of 
>> helper tools used either directly during packaging or during various 
>> tests and inspections, which rely on e.g. shared libraries ending in 
>> .so and located below /usr/lib.  When then unusual things are done, 
>> we might want to add hints for such tools to not hide potential 
>> problems from them.
>>
>> Or expressed differently: Even if PureData works splendid with its 
>> unusual naming, we still might benefit in Debian (and derivatives) 
>> from using the classic .so extension if indeed it is technically the 
>> same.
>
>
>i think there is no issue here at all.
>we are talking about "modules" (binaries that can be dlopen()ed).
>
>dlopen()ed modules are technically quite the same as shlibs (meaning, 
>the way they are built), but are used in a different way, that makes 
>issues such as installation path and/or rpath irrelevant (at least, as 
>far as i understand it)
>
>so from this perspective, we don't have to care about the extension.
>(i guess this came from my confusing use of "shared library"; sorry for
>that; anyhow, debian-policy is quite clear that "modules" need not have
>an .so extension)
>
>the other point is of course, whether tools like dh_shlibdeps and
>dh_strip work correctly.
>i can only say from experience, that they do.
>e.g. the binary Gem.pd_linux in the package "gem" is correctly stripped
>and the package depends on all packages that provide libraries the
>binary has been dynamically linked to.
>debian/rules does not extra care of shlibs.
>so it seems to "just work"
>
>i think that changing the default extension of pd-plugins only in
>Debian, will make things unnecessary complicated, as it would require to
>patch the module-loader of puredata as well as practically every single
>build system for externals, only to find ourselves deviant from and
>incompatible with virtually any other puredata distribution.
>
>to sum up, i don't think the gain would outweigh the cost.
>(esp. since there is currently no real gain, as  adhere to the
>debian-policy and all tools work as expected)


Thanks for the long explanation.  I am thrilled to be around such 
knowledgeable folks here!


  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100828/1561f08a/attachment.pgp>