Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 11:39 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow:
I’m not sure if I got your conclusion: Do you expect problems if the RTS and libraries were built against different versions of libffi, or not?
To answer your question: yes I would expect problems.
Thanks for your assessment. Matthias, I hope you understand why I would not drop the libffi dependencies from the Haskell packages; better safe than sorry. I can supervise the resulting binNMU-orgy, if you prefer.
My question was: how do other (non-Haskell) packages on Debian that contain static libraries deal with this problem? We should follow whatever approach is used by others.
I’m actually not sure if we have this situation (various interdepending static libraries dynamically linking libffi). OCAML might be in a similar situation, but it seems that they don’t use libffi. Their packages do, however, all seem to have a dependency on libc6 which corresponds to our situation. Only that a so-name bump of libc is probably less frequent than one in libffi... Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata