Bug#1095039: debian-policy: Development files: Allow using linker scripts instead of symlinks

Hi Russ,

On 2026-02-07 17:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> writes:
> > On 2025-02-02 23:52, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 11:40:45PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> >>> The section 8.4, Development files, mentions that the development
> >>> package should contain a symlink for the associated shared library
> >>> without a version number. In practice a linker script could be used
> >>> instead, this is for instance the case of libncurses.so, libncursesw.so,
> >>> libc.so, and also libm.so for architectures which support the vector
> >>> math library.
> 
> >>> Here is a proposal to update the existing paragraph: 
> 
> >>>  The development package should contain either a symlink or a linker
> >>>  script for the associated shared library without a version number. For
> >>>  example, the libgdbm-dev package should include a symlink from
> >>>  /usr/lib/libgdbm.so to libgdbm.so.3.0.0, or a linker script that
> >>>  achieves the same effect. This symlink or linker script is needed by
> >>>  the linker (ld) when compiling packages, as it will only look for
> >>>  libgdbm.so when compiling dynamically.
> 
> >> Maybe a footnote explaining when a linker script could be needed would be
> >> useful ?
> 
> > Usually this is decided at the upstream level and not at the debian
> > level, anyway if you want to add a footnote, here is a proposal:
> 
> >  Linker scripts offer more flexible linking strategies, like
> >  conditionally linking with an additional library, or falling back to a
> >  static library for some symbols.
> 
> Here is a proposed change incorporating this change and Guillem's
> feedback. Does this look good to everyone? (I moved one footnote because
> we now try to keep footnotes immediately after the paragraph they refer to
> and the added footnote would otherwise be out of order.)

Thanks, sounds good.

Regards
Aurelien