[PLUG] ./configure error

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Mon Oct 14 06:01:55 UTC 2002


On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Bruce Kingsland wrote:
> This seems wrong to me. When I see devel in package names, I think of
> me doing development work. I don't think of me just installing
> software and using it.

When "devel" is in a package name (nearly always a library package), it
just means the headers are there for compiling software that links against
the library.

It _IS_ super dumb.  I totally agree.  There is absolutely no reason to
equate 
./configure && make test install 
with software development.  I think that probably scares people that it
shouldn't.

> I'd expect the devel package to have source for all the parts of the
> program. If the headers of the binary libraries are necessary for
> installing applications that must be compiled on your system, then why
> can't the headers for that binary library be included in the
> 'non-devel' package; assuming that the headers are not the full
> source.

I'd like an answer to that, too, honestly.

Now, the headers are only required when you are going to compile software
and there is a method of moving binaries between machines and putting them
in the proper locations so that they work well enough to be called
"installed", so technically the headers aren't required to install
applications for which you have precompiled binaries.  But so what?

> I'm not sure I want full source of every tool on those systems where I
> need to compile programs.

The "devel" packages are usually just binary packages with headers, not
source packages.  Yeah, it's totally dumb.  But so is packaged binaries
for fast computers.

> Since all of my systems are unique (speaking cpu's here), in order to
> have optimal compiles, I'd have to have all the source on all of them;
> and there isn't necessarily enough disk space on all the systems for
> that.

Well, there _IS_ such a thing as cross-compiling.  You can build for other
architectures than the one running on your system.

> As a developer, I'd want full source of only those tools I'd be
> developing, or needing to view in order to complete said development
> -- and then only on my development system. As a user, I don't seen a
> need for any full source -- except those sources that I choose for
> educational reasons.

Right, so most package management systems have adopted the following
naming scheme:
(these may be rpm, deb, tgz, whatever)

foo:  The binary executables, libraries, stock
configuration, and (at least minimal) documentation files to use the
application.

foo-devel:  The same as the above, often compiled with debugging symbols
in the binaries, plus the header files for compiling new binaries against
any shared libraries in the package and (hopefully) some extra
documentation.

foo-src:  The full source for the package and documentation, usually
modified with special patches and configuration defaults to make it
compliant with the schemes and ideals of the package maintainer and the
distribution maintainer (rather than the software's official maintainer).

Dig?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG mailing list