| 1 |
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 09:40:47 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:14:43 -0400 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > > Ah, while we're at it. If a library has macros referring |
| 8 |
> > > to the functions of another library (or just types) in its public |
| 9 |
> > > API, it needs a pkg-config file. ELF dependencies are not enough, |
| 10 |
> > > and the gold linker will refuse to work because of a missing |
| 11 |
> > > explicit dependency. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Eh, straight to the point where pkgconfig is not the solution to |
| 14 |
> > everything: a binary not using said macros but trusting pkgconfig |
| 15 |
> > will get overlinked. Documentation stating that when using these |
| 16 |
> > macros/functions one should link to the other lib would make things |
| 17 |
> > even better. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The macros/types can change over time. Maintaining all indirect |
| 20 |
> dependencies is not friendly nor useful. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So in this hypothetic case where your lib changes its ABI and API, it |
| 24 |
is not friendly and seen useless by consumers, I think I agree :) |
Archives