Ubuntu
libsdl1.2 package

libSDL.so shouldn't be inside libsdl1.2-dev

Bug #182439 reported by Pizuz
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
libsdl1.2 (Ubuntu)
Won't Fix
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

From my humble understanding installing a foo-dev package shouldn't be necessary unless you want to build something that needs to compiled against foo, should it?

There is at least one application/library - libspuEternal (a sound plugin for various Playstation emulators) - which tries to access libSDL.so, if you want to use the SDL framework as sound output. Unfortunately libSDL.so is inside libsdl1.2-dev and not libsdl1.2debian-* and therefore spuEternal will fail to recognize SDL, if you don't know that. Since it spuEternal comes pre-compiled there's a chance that you never installed libsdl1.2-dev, at all.

Therefore libSDL.so should be provided by the libsdl1.2debian-* packages unless there are sane reasons against such a move.

See original description
Pizuz (florian-fahr)
description: updated
Revision history for this message
jhansonxi (jhansonxi) wrote :

I've encountered this too in Hardy final. The /usr/lib/libSDL.so link to is only installed with the dev package. While trying to resolve an openal bug I switched it to use SDL and then Chromium couldn't find it resulting in very slow gameplay. As I was debugging it was only a temporary problem for me but it does look like a packaging error.

Revision history for this message
Luke Yelavich (themuso) wrote :

libsdl.so is in libsdl1.2-dev for a reason. Moving libsdl.so to the main sdl package is in fact a Debian policy violation. The issue needs to be fixed in the applications that choose to make use of the SDL library in a non-standard way.

I would file bugs against the applications that do this, so the issues can be fixed in the application source code.

Changed in libsdl1.2:
status: New → Won't Fix
Revision history for this message
jhansonxi (jhansonxi) wrote :

I need some clarification. If I change ~./openalrc to use SDL and it affects Chromium, is that indicative of a design flaw in openal or in Chromium? If it's an openal problem then bug #194919 may eliminate it.

Revision history for this message
quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

>>Luke

Could you explain this in a little more detail for those of us who are not so familiar with Debian or, more importantly, it's polices?

Generally speaking, in *nix operating systems, for any particular package to contradict the standard logic of other packages there must be a very good and specific reason, but I don't see what it is here.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.